If the assertions of the prosecutor are not demonstrably true, and the same for Libby's assertions. It is a case of he said, he said. The prosecutor is the one who has to prove his case. It is very difficult for the prosecutor to prove that Libby was intentionally misleading in regard to when he became officially aware of Plame's status, especially since her status is still in question. That's what the prosecutor has to prove, intention.
Yeah, between Libby and the investigators and the GJ, with some independent contemporaneaous evidence that Libby had authoritative knowledge that Wilson's wife in fact worked at the CIA.
The prosecutor is the one who has to prove his case. It is very difficult for the prosecutor to prove that Libby was intentionally misleading in regard to when he became officially aware of Plame's status, especially since her status is still in question.
Her "status" as you put it is not "covert or not." Her "status" as relevant to the case is something less than that, and maybe as little as "known to be an employee of the CIA."
That's what the prosecutor has to prove, intention.
Intention to conceal, from investigators, that he had authoritative knowledge that Wilson't wife was working at the CIA. The indictment itself says the lie relates to "LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA." Not covert, not some special "status," just that "LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA."
Now, as you say, the facts as stated in the indictment need to be proven to the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt. But if he proves that LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, and further that he intended to conceal that from investigators and the GJ, then he should be convicted of the charges.