No. It conceivably could get a directed verdict, but the indictment is facially sufficient, as far as I can tell.
It does us no good to circle the wagons. If anyone divulged classified material to reporters, he should be gone. If he revealed the name of a covert operative, he should be jailed. If he lied to the grand jury, he should be jailed. These go for everyone, from the file clerk to Pres. Bush himself.
I do not think that Libby is accused of outing an covert operative which was the original reason for this investigation....to discover IF and WHO did such a thing.
The prosecutor went out of his way to point out that there was no finding on that. I listened to him.
The charge against Libby appears to be a contradiction between when he says he knew Plame's name and when some reporters say he knew Plame's name.
Actually, the President is able to divulge the name of a covert agent, the nature of operations, etc. for national security reasons which he himself would decide as POTUS. He can do it, or he can direct his branch to do so. Everyone one at State, CIA, Justice, etc. has POTUS as their boss.
The Hatch Act forbids government employees (particularly CIA) from running operations to influence elections. It is illegal.
If the Lacey Peterson lawyer had come up with no charge against Scott Peterson, but had instead indicted him for a discrepancy between when he first thought Lacey was missing and when reporters said he first thought Lacey was missing, what would you have thought?