On its face, of course it looks like Libby is in "real trouble". We have only heard one side, please, ok??
You have made much of his notebooks contradicting his statements. Agree, looks bad...except, WHY would Libby make the notes, keep the notes, not destroy them, not fail to turn them over, yet turn around and tell the GJ something the notes contradicted? HUH??? I want an explanation for that inexplicability and I'm hoping to get one that helps enlighten me to this whole case.
As for his notebooks supporting Russert, only if Libby's notes were complete, leaving nothing out, about a conversation with Russert, and the notes proved that Russert mentioned nothing to Libby about Plame. A tall order.
I do agree that his notes apparently showed that he discussed Plame with Cheney, earlier than the Russert conversation. Which he failed to tell the GJ, apparently, or the investigators who first questioned him.
Again, WHY would he SAY something different from his own notes that he turned over? You, yourself, also point out that he was far too chatty and should have given the most minimal of answers, and may I add, Libby is a high-powered attorney in his own right.
Once again, I'm waiting for an explanation, because none of this makes any sense.
I agree, the why is very important. On the surface, he looks like he is incredibly stupid (which I doubt) or incredibly arrogant (which his friends say he is not). Otherwise, why not just simply say, "I don't recall if we talked about x, y, z on that day or not. Whatever my notes say is probably what happened, but I don't recall." Then you cannot be prosecuted for perjury, because no one can prove intent.