This is why I find it hard to believe that Rove or Libby would have motivation to cover up anything. Any first year law student could tell in 5 minutes that Ms. Flame is not covered by either statute. I'm sure if I knew there was no possibility of these statutes being violated so did the lawyers for Rove and Libby, that's probably why they cooperated so much. If you know you can't be convicted of the crime in question, why risk committing perjury? It just doesn't make sense.
Another question is why would the prosecutor spend two years on something he had to know couldn't be a crime, even if he bought into the Dem version of how her name got out there.
I don't know where this case is heading, but there are some things about it that don't add up.
1) Valerie Plame Wilson works in the WMD section so presumably she has been active in preparing analysis of WMDs in Iraq and she knows what her section of the CIA knows. All through the 1990s there was no apparent conflict in intelligence reports that Saddam presented a danger and was attempting to acquire more/better WMDs which is why we put troops in harms way flying the no-fly zones for all those years.
2) After 9/11, and with a new administration at the helm, things probably changed dramatically in the way intelligence reports were analyzed. For one, the "wall" between agencies came down. GWB got conflicting reports from intel agencies on WMDs in Iraq & decided that with Saddams refusal to adhere to UN resolutions, he (GWB)had no choice but to take Saddam out.
You know the saying, knowledge is power? Well, I think a lot of this case is from that section of the CIA angry that GWB had access to other reports and made his decision to bypass their intel and approval.