I understand that, but, again, how is how Plame's status made it's way to the press material if it did not violate any law for Plame's status to be revealed to the press?
If revealing Plame's status to the press was not illegal (because she was not covert), what about the investigation is "official" such that perjury/etc. laws apply?
As I have said elsewhere, what does the law require for an investigation to be "offical" such that justice can be obstructed by obstructing the investigation?
Does the investigation not have to have some relationship to determining if a crime was committed?
If the threshold elements for a crime were not met (Plame was not covert -- similarly one could not investigate child molestation if it was clear or reasonably knowable at the commencement of the investigation that the victim was not a "child" within the meaning of the law), how does the investigation, in fact, remain "official"?
Are you saying the law is the mere fact that a certain official officially launches an investigation is enough? There's no requirement that the investigation actually be about something within the authority and purview of the appointing official (such as a law enforcement purpose)?
Subtitute "her ID was leaked by a person who is under the law" for "Plame was not covert" as being what you refer to as "the threshold element."
What you describe is apt to be the primary line of defense by Libby, but it will be as tough to prevail in taht as it was for Miller and Cooper to get out of testifying ON EXACTLY THE SAME GROUNDS.
Miller and Cooper asserted that they did not have to testify, because Plame was not covert, ergo, there is no crime, ergo, there is no need for their testimony.
Miller went to jail over the issue.