This is what Joe DiGenova says.
Toensing and DiGenova assert that the entire investigation was bogus, because Plame obviously did not satisfy the "covert" requirement embodied in 50 USC 421. I agree with them in that regard, but given an ongoing investigation, a belief there was no crime does not create immunity from prosecution for false statements.
DiGenova says perhaps Libby's best defense will be the simplest defense, that he had no intention of lying.http://www.csmonitor.com/earlyed/early_usa102905b.htm
DIGENOVA: Well, first of all, I don't agree with some of these Republican folks who have been on television saying perjury is not sufficient here. If he can prove real perjury and an effort to mislead the grand jury, then he should bring indictments. And if that's all he brings, that's still legitimate and worthwhile and, in my opinion, would be worth bringing.If he uses the espionage statute, I will be extremely surprised. Because, as you know, that statute was passed in 1917. It's designed to deal with the disclosure of national defense information. And it was in existence in 1982, when the Congress enacted the Agent Identities Protection Act because the Justice Department said that the espionage act does not apply to the identity of a covert agent.
So, if he's using that act, that will be a somewhat dubious use of criminal law. But on the obstruction side, if anybody lied to the grand jury, no matter who they are, or misled people or purposely tried to influence other witnesses, they should be charged. And, of course, whether or not they're guilty will be determined by a trial.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 79 > § 1623 Prev | Next
§ 1623. False declarations before grand jury or court
Release date: 2005-08-03
(a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false ***material*** declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false ***material*** declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
http://tinyurl.com/97g9g
If there is no crime and no possibilty of uncovering a crime, than the testimony is immaterial.
You are trying to make this more complicated that it is.
And, lest we forget, prosecution in cases like this is up to the discretion of the prosecutor. It is selective prosecution to indict for something like this.
Even you cannot come up with a similar instance. There are none.