[half-cajun]

"Fitzgerald will claim that Plame's status was not pertinent to Libby's alleged perjury (which they'll say is a standalone matter), and protest the records acquisition."

Doesn't the perjury have to concern a matter that was "material". Can't Libby say that if Plame wasn't a covert agent, then anything that he may have said to investigators, even if it was a lie, was not material and thus there is no crime. Just throwing that out there for discussion.

[angkor]

Doesn't the perjury have to concern a matter that was "material".

Not a lawyer, but that seems correct.

In fact I think this is the way Libby's team will squash this case.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Doesn't the perjury have to concern a matter that was "material"."
,BR> I'm not a lawyer, but I recall from other cases that the question of materiality does arise in accusations of perjury. I thought there could be no perjury charge pertaining to statements not intended to cover up a crime, but merely intended to "save face" about some secondary matter. So if Libby's team can establish that there was no underlying crime in his divulging Plame's identity, they might invoke the materiality principle.