I've been reading the semi-transcript on a liberal blog; my take is that the first prosecuting attorney (last name begins with Z)was not sufficiently clear to make his case. Libby's attorney, Wells, wasted a good deal of time in a personal hissy fit, but pretty well destroyed Russert's credibility for any open-minded person. Jeffrees was MUCH better for the defense - clear, concise, easy to follow; very effective (even the libs admitted this). Then Wells was up again and muddied the waters again. Apparently tried some unconvincing theatrics at his close. As one lib blogger said, if I'm charged with perjury, Jeffrees (and not Wells) is the attorney I would want.
Just my two cents - if I were on a jury I would be really confused who said what, when, to whom. In the end, I would probably vote not guilty, even though there is a certain whiff about some of this, because nothing is PROVED. Its all speculation. Jeefrees was good at hammering that Libby doesn't have to "prove" he is innocent; the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. With all the memory lapses by EVERONE, I don't see how this case possibly rises to that level of proof.