"Tough to tell. But the indictment is not as flimsy as many posters here paint it as. It looks pretty solid to me, and I've not heard a SPECIFIC argument or strategy for beating the rap."
Challenge the reporters' memories.
Cooper has already gone wishy-washy on the reasons why he contacted Rove. Remember the welfare reform issue? Cooper denied he called Rove about that but Rove's notes say so. Later, Cooper found notes he had been researching the issue at the time, but still doesn't remember talking about it with Rove.
That's Fitz' witness no. 1. Not a good start.
Challenge the reporters' memories.
That's the he said, she said defense. It's the only one I see.
The indictment hinges on Libby telling the GJ that he (Libby) first heard of Plame's CIA status from reporters. Libby told that story a number of times, in a number of different ways.
But the facts seem pretty solid that Libby first heard of Plame's "stuff" via personal, independent inquiry to the CIA - plus hearing it from VPOTUS, who got it from the CIA. Those independent inquiries were June 11, 12, 2003. Discussions with Russert, Cooper, Miller were June 23 (Miller) to July 10 (Russert) to July 12 (Cooper). All in all, a tight time frame of events, wehre he's apt to form a clear impression of who knew what, first.
His testimony to the GJ in November 2003 was that he heard it FIRST, from reporters.
On it's face, it looks like a tough rap to beat.