Sorry, one can not read that indictment and come to that conclusion.
He simply ignores the underlying law while implying that Libby somehow broke it and leaves empty the vessel marked, was she or wasn't she covered by the law.
I mean it's a joke.
Trial One:
Prosecuting Attorney: Did you Mr Russert mention Valerie Plame to you?
Libby: That is my recollection.
Prosecuting Attorney: Did Mr Russert mention Valerie Plame to Mr Libby?
Russert: Not to my recollection.
Defense Attorney: I move to dismiss the case for lack of evidence.
Judge: Case dismissed. Next!
I think he is relying on classification laws in general rather than that one limited statute. Still about as lame.
Isn't the problem for Libby that he did not tell the grand jury that Cheney told him about Plame, and there were many witnesses that he was told? And apparently, all he had to do was go to the grand jury to clear it up before its term expires, after being "reminded," and no crime. That is what Rove apparently did. And that is why I would guess that Fitzgerald waited until the grand jury's term expired before filing against Libby, so Libby would not have a chance to expunge the crime. Libby's lawyer screwed up.