I think I could prove the case to an objective jury. The timeline is fairly compressed, between Libby's obtaining factual knowledge and his misleading of investigators. The fact that Libby took the initiative to call the CIA and find out -- and then, when "knowledge of Plame" is a hot potato, he forgets this in interviews about 4 months later ... and the story he weaves comes off as purposefully deceitful on a couple levels when you think about it.
He does have an outstanding defense team, and to the extent they can complicate the story in the jurors mind, he has a fighting chance of getting off. I don't mean to give the impression I think the case against him is a slam dunk, but it's not as far fetched as most posters here think.
The prosecutor claims to have no evidence from the CIA regarding the status of Plame at the time of the alleged leak. It would be difficult to have documentation of the Libby call to the CIA and not have any documentation of the status.
The very fact that the prosecutor is stone walling on documentation from the CIA indicates a problem for the prosecution. It may indicate that the prosecutor knew that there was no crime and that he proceded with trying to trap someone in the administration.