Patrick Fitzgerald begins by stating that Valerie Plame was indeed under cover and that her true job was not at all known. His first statement encompassed national security and the blown cover of Plame.
The big push is that Libby gave information to reporters and not the other way around. Libby learned Plame's identity from government officials: a CIA agent, an Undersecretary of State and form Cheney and a Cheney staffer.
Why isn't Libby charged with leaking?
Fitzgerald says that the the investigation is not over. The obstruction charge is present because Fitzgerald cannot divine Libby's intent.
Michael Isikoff is asking about Official A. Fitzgerald offers a non-answer, saying he can't talk about a person not indicted, meaning by the way, Rove and Cheney also.
UPDATE: Fitzgerald is frustrating the reporters by refusing to speculate on any feature of Wilson's trip and Plame's role in that. He did make allusions to the harm done to Plame, but is not giving the media any ammunition for the Iraq angle.
Still, nothing about the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, merely that Fitzgerlad doesn't really know what happened so he has to claim that Libby threw up a roadblock to frustrate his investigation. I'm not so sure he will be able to make all of these charges stick.
UPDATE II: Those hoping for Fitzmas will likely be disappointed. Now there will be a whole new set of predictions and hopes. It's the gift that keeps on...never mind. I like TigerHawk's take:
First, the fact that the indictment does not name any underlying offense will substantially diminish the ultimate impact on the Bush presidency. Indeed, it may even revive the idea that once again a special prosecutor has ginned up a secondary or tertiary offense in what is properly a political fight. After Walsh and Starr, will the public -- beyond the usual partisans -- much care about obstruction and perjury? I think not.
Second, the fact that there is no charge for the underlying offense guts the sanctimonious and largely untrue accusation that the Bush administration undermined national security by outing Valerie Plame. The CIA has managed to do a lot of damage in this bureaucratic fight, but people will soon be asking Cardinalpark's question: why are we not outraged that the CIA was deliberately undermining the policies of an elected president? Langley may ultimately emerge from this case much the worse for wear.
Third, the absence of an underlying offense will make it much easier for Bush to pardon Libby, perhaps even before January 19, 2009.
Fourth, liberals who thought that perjury was a trivial procedural detail in 1998 will be full of outrage today. Conservatives who then believed that perjury was right there in the 7th or 8th circle of Hell will now characterize it as "driving 56."
Oh, and Terry Moran is still a dick.