Karl Rove's latest version of his role in the Plame investigation is contained in this Los Angeles Times article by Peter Wallsten and Tom Hamburger.

Lawyers familiar with the case believe these e-mails were one element of a broad, eleventh-hour review of evidence — coupled with negotiations by Rove's lawyers — that led Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald not to include him in Friday's action.

"In the normal back-and-forth between prosecutor and defense attorneys, some issues were raised that made the prosecutor step back and have pause for thought as far as his future activities," a source close to Rove said. "He thought, 'This is enough for me to hold off making decisions.'"

The article continues to describe the last minute interview with Adam Levine as an indicator that Fitzgerald may now believe Rove just had a faulty memory in failing to tell investigators or the grand jury intially about his July 11 conversation with Time Reporter Matt Cooper. My post about the Levine interview is here.

These reporters have reported on the case several times, using sources referred to as "Rove associates" or people familiar with Rove's perspective.

by TChris

The NY Times describes how, “in its clear, cold language, [the Libby indictment] lifts a veil on how aggressively Mr. Cheney's office drove the rationale against Saddam Hussein and then fought to discredit the Iraq war's critics.” The indictment offers a peek, but the full scope of Cheney’s involvement in Libby’s indicted wrongdoing remains an unanswered question.

It is Libby’s right to be presumed innocent until proof beyond a reasonable doubt overcomes that presumption in the minds of twelve jurors. Would Libby exercise his right to a trial, knowing that Fitzgerald might call Cheney as a witness to events described in the indictment (pdf)? And knowing that Karl Rove, Official A, will testify against him? Does Libby want to subject Cheney and Rove to cross-examination?

I'm off to meet with clients I should have met with Thursday and Friday while I was covering RoveGate. Here's a place to keep the conversation flowing.

Rove may be "Official Source A," but we still don't know who told Novak about Valerie Plame. One likely explanation is that Novak's source is one of those who got a deal or received immunity from prosecution from Fitzgerald in exchange for cooperation in the investigation.

There are potentially several people in this category. I'll speculate as to a few: Karl Rove, Stephen Hadley, David Wurmser, John Hannah, Fred Fleitz and Ari Fleischer. The Seattle Times reported today that Wurmser and Hannah testified late in the process. It has previously been reported that both cooperated.

Crooks and Liars has the video to Fitzgerald's press conference today.

The New York Times has the transcript.

I haven't had a chance yet to read other blogger's analysis. The Times has a wrap up. Don't miss Jane and Reddhed at Firedog Lake, Huffington Post, Kevin Drum, Just One Minute, Digby, Billmon, Think Progress, America Blog, Needlenose , Empty Wheel Josh Marshall and Daily Kos (like anyone needs reminding about the last two). I'll be reading all their reactions over the weekend.

I just got an email from Typepad apologizing for the slowness in the comment registration process for the past several weeks. They are taking major steps to improve it. If any of you have experienced difficulties in trying to comment here, I apologize. Hopefully it will be fixed soon.

Official A is now identified as Karl Rove (see post below.) The Washington Post reports he could now be a witness against Lewis Libby.

I suspect that's one reason Karl Rove hasn't been charged. As I've speculated repeatedly, I think Rove has a deal. But, like most prosecutors, Fitzgerald isn't buying a pig in a poke. He wants to see how helpful Rove is in his trial testimony against Libby (and any future indictees) before agreeing either to give him a complete pass or ask the Court to give him probation if he pleads guilty.

If Rove has a deal in the works, I think it won't be finalized or made public until after he has finished cooperating. And that won't be until Libby's case is over. I still think Libby will never go to trial. It seems he has been intent on protecting Cheney, to the point of lying. His new lawyer may be able to work out a plea agreement that provides for a sentence reduction to an amount Libby can live with to spare Cheney from having to testify at his trial.

Raw Story and the Associated Press report that "Official A" (p. 8, par. 21 of Libby Indictment) is Karl Rove. The paragraph reads:

On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House (“Official A”) who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson’s wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson’s trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson’s wife.

Read it closely. It doesn't say that Official A is Novak's source. It says he had a conversation with Novak in which it was discussed that Wilson's wife was a CIA employee and that Novak was going to write about it. It doesn't say whether Offical A told Novak about Plame's CIA employement or whether Novak gave Rove the information.

How is this inconsistent with what Rove's team has previously said he told the grand jury? This New York Times article provides one such instance:

Tim Russert said today that Lewis Libby called him to complain about a reporter's comments on a cable show. He did not identify the reporter or the show.

In Lewis Libby's indictment, the Government charges:

On or about July 10, 2003, LIBBY spoke to NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert to complain about press coverage of LIBBY by an MSNBC reporter. LIBBY did not discuss Wilson’s wife with Russert. (page 7, Paragraph 20.)

I think I found the show transcript. It's Hardball for July 8, 2003. The reporter is Chris Matthews. It does sound like something Libby would complain about because Matthews keeps saying that the Vice President's office had the CIA send Joseph Wilson to Niger. I'll bet Libby was steaming. Here's the portion of the transcript (available on lexis.com):

Pete Wilson of NBC reports that Libby's lawyer believes this is a memory case, in other words, how could Libby be expected to remember all these conversations?

Very easily. He took copious notes. The International Herald Tribune February 11, 2004 (available on Lexis.com) reported:

One set of documents that prosecutors repeatedly referred to in their meetings with White House aides are extensive notes compiled by Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and national security adviser. Prosecutors have described the notes as "copious," the lawyers said.

Via Kevin Drum, Ryan Lizza of the New Republic says that the Under Secretary of State who told Libby that Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA is Marc Grossman. Lizza says he confirmed this with Fitzgerald's spokesman today.

The Indictment says that the Under Secretary of State told Libby this on June 11 or 12, 2003. It was Grossman who asked for the infamous June 9th State Department memo.

What about Fred Fleitz or David Wurmser?

by TChris

As TalkLeft and its Washington correspondent reported here, Fitzgerald has no authority to write a report.

Whatever we learn from Patrick Fitzgerald will come from court filings, court proceedings, and explanatory press conferences. Responding to an inquiry from Democratic congressmen, Fitzgerald said he lacks the authority to issue a report of his investigation, as did Ken Starr (pursuant to an independent counsel law that has since expired).