I think this is the subpeona doc with fewer redactions:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-3138a.pdf
I have a hunch this motion is going to cause paint to blister in Fitz's office. This is the real news. This puppy is NEVER going to trial.
In paragraph 23, he has Libby admitting that he conversed with the VP regarding Plame, in June, but had forgotten that fact when he talked with Russert in July.
If Libby can convince the jury that he forgot about the conversation with Cheney, and the other events that add up to "Libby had authoritative knowledge that Plame worked at CIA," then the charges in this indictment will result in a not-guilty verdict.
But on pages 11 & 12, Fitz notes additional contact involving Libby (outside of reporters) that would impart actual knowledge that Plame worked at the CIA. I think items "(4)", "(5)" and "(7)" are the toughest ones to "reconcile with Libby's assertion of "I forgot I knew."
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/libby-fitzgerald-affidavit-20060203.pdf
Footnote 15 on page 28 is on the point of "leaking covert agent" and says, in part,
If Libby knowingly disclosed information about Plame's status with the CIA, Libby would appear to have violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 793 if the information is considered "information respecting national defense." In order to establish a violation of Title 50, United States Code 421, it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who has carried out cover work overseas within the last 5 years. To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work [emphasis added]
On a quick read, the (heavily redacted) August 27 affidavit does not provide many facts that Fitz may have relied on for the belief that the CIA was protecting Plame's identity.