Hey I think Andy McCarthy (former Fed prosecutor & Fitz friend) agrees with me (maybe) on my assessment of the Cooper call (that it boils down to he said/he said) and not some tie in to what Libby knew when.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_10_30_corner-archive.asp#081211
At a minimum, it is not clear, as evidenced by your's, mine and other's varying interpretations. I can honestly say, every time I re-read the indictment, I find it to be less compelling (and much less so they Fitz's press conference where he was insinuating things that were not in the indictment nor charged). The other things I think that work in Libby's favor (as memory problems vs. intentionally lying): 1) he testified without invoking the 5th, 2) he signed a waiver allowing reporters to testify and gave his personal OK if they called asking for it, 3) some of his own notes are used against him (then why not destroy them beforehand).
As you said, it will be interesting to hear Libby's defense...at least we will then have both sides of the story to judge.
we still need to find out about how Fitzgerald obtained those notes - if he got them from Libby, and the main focus of the charge against Libby is that he lied to the GJ/FBI about the timeline of when he knew Wilson's wife was CIA, and that timeline is established by his own notes freely provided by him, then it appears to be a case of Libby simply not reviewing those notes well enough before testifying. to testify willfully contrary to notes which he himself provided, would be essentially be "judicial suicide" - you would have to believe he wanted to be indicted.