Yeah, there is no way that counts as perjury. The question asks for a legal conclusion, not a fact, and for good reasons we make it very hard for anyone to call perjury in strained conclusions. In a real case, you wouldn’t just have to admit “oops an agent screwed up.” You’d have to give some sort of contextual information about the process the agent was supposed to be following, and how he deviated. There is a colorable argument that this could result in some disclosure of importance to national security. Just because it’s a stupid argument and the judge didn’t buy it doesn’t mean it’s perjury.

The government got the correct sanction here, a finding of “bad faith” and attorneys’ fees, which is what courts do when parties push thin legal arguments further than they should.

Surely this can’t be the proper standard for national security claims. Otherwise, arguments of the form must always be acceptable, and without repercussion:

Based on [redacted, even from the judge] the court must make [arbitrary judgment].

That’s giving the exective branch more authority than simply giving them immunity from perjury would!

This, right here, is why it is very important to keep unilateral powers away from government by any means necessary. The idea that government, made of people, is going to operate in good faith and not cover-your-ass mode is a joke.

I've had to deal with numerous similar situations. My saving grace is that I make decent money so I can afford to penalize them.

but all those Hollywood movies told us that keeping aliens or some other crazy threat from public served well to prevent mass panic while the good guys did the needful to save the day!

Secret laws are bad. And besides, how we have a democracy if their are some BS ridden from the public eye? And also, the bad guys prebvial after the government fails. If you want a counter example see Half Life series.

This is bad, and there should be more serious repercussions against government agents who lie under oath in the course of a cover-up.

This though pales in comparison to what’s happening in the Concord Manangement trial (Mueller v Internet Trolls) with secret evidence presented to the judge ex parte.

>you let government's hide embarrassments

And political malfeasance as Nixon showed us. Ultimately to his own downfall. Fortunately.