He wasn't charged, because it was a civil lawsuit, with civil penalties for the behavior.
Perjury and false statements in a civil case are criminal conduct. Starr didn't pursue the charge out of deference to the office. THe Senate figured the conduct didn't rise to a level that warranted removing him from Office. But the underlying case where his criminal lying behavior happened was a civil case. Understandable behavior too, since the truth hurt both his chances in the case, and his public reputation. LOL.
The point with Libby, is that there appears to not to have been an investigated case ...
Miller raised this point, albeit too late, in order to avoid giving testimony. She went to jail over it.
Without further explanation, it appears that Fitzgerald didn't look to see if there was even a potential of a crime.
Either that or he trusted the word of the CIA.
Also, Libby was NOT identified as a target of the case ...
I don't know about being identified as one, but my read of the recently unredacted portions of Tatel's opinion in the "Miller Must Testify" case indicates that Fitzgerald considered Libby as a possible leaker in violation of the pertinent statute.
What's more, if Libby mentioned Plame's covert status in either [page 34] conversation, charges under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, 50 U.S.C. § 421, currently off the table for lack of evidence (see 8/27/04 Aff. at 28 & n.15), might become viable. Thus, because Miller may provide key corroboration or contradiction of Libby's claims -- evidence obviously available from no other source -- the special counsel has made a compelling showing that the subpoenas directed at Miller are vital to an accurate assessment of Libby's conduct.
Sorry. Thought you were referring to having "been charged" in the lawsuit. Obviously, he wasn't criminally charged, he was sued under legal codes for his unlawful behavior.