To me (yep I know)any sane judge should throw this case out the window
Good question. A prosecutor conducts an investigation to (theoretically) determine whether a crime has be committed or not. If Libby mislead the prosecutor, destroyed evidence or liee, he could face perjury or obstruction of justice charges even if it turns out at the end of the investigation that no crime has been committed. Ahh, but therein lies the rub, the prosecutor has to (theoretically) at least be investigating an underlying crime. In this case, it appears that Libby's lawyers are trying to show that Fitz never so much as engaged in such activity. Hence, charging Libby with perjury and obstruction amounts to entrapment.
Fitz claimed, during his now famous presser, that Libby mislead him such that he could not determine if a crime had been committed. But, as many of us suspected, Fitz never asked a basic question, namely, was Plame really undercover? If not, then what crime was Fitz's investigation based upon?
I don't know, ask Martha Stewart.