Why did mainstream reporters (David Schuster of MSNBC comes to mind) say a few weeks ago they believed Rove would be charged? That seemed to be the consensus of opinion. What changed?

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well known for her protection or for the benefit of all of us. It's important that a CIA officer's ithe officer but for the nation's security...

I can say that for the people who work at the CIA and work at other places, they have to expect that when they do their jobs, that classified information will be protected. And they have to expect that when they do their jobs, that information about whether or not they're affiliated with the CIA will be protected and they run a risk when they work for the CIA that something bad could happen to them. But they have to make sure that they don't run the risk that something bad is going to happen to them for something done by their own fellow government employees...

I'll be blunt. That talking point won't fly. If you're doing a national security investigation, if you're trying to find out who compromised the identify of a CIA officer, and you go before a Grand jury and if the charges are proven -- just remember there's a presumption of innocence -- but if it is proven that the Chief of Staff for the Vice President went before a federal Grand jury and lied under oath repeatedly and fabricated a story about how he learned this information, how he passed it on, and we prove obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements to the FBI, that's a very, very serious matter. And I'd say, I think people might not understand this, we as prosecutors and FBI agents, have to deal with false statements, obstruction of justice and perjury all the time. And the Department of Justice charges those statutes all the time. When I was in New York working as a prosecutor, we brought those cases because we realize that the truth is the engine of our judicial system. And if you compromise the truth, the whole process is lost. In Philadelphia where Jack works, they prosecute false statements and obstruction of justice. When I got to Chicago, I knew that people before me had prosecuted false statements, obstruction and perjury cases and we do it all the time. And a truck driver pays a bribe or someone else does something, where they go into a Grand jury afterward and lie about it, they get indicted all the time. Any notion that anyone might have that there is a different standard for a high official or that this is somehow singling out obstruction of justice or perjury is upside down. If these facts are true, if we were to walk away from this and not charge obstruction of justice as perjury, we might as well just hand in our jobs because our jobs in the criminal justice system is to make sure people tell us the truth. And when it's a high level official in a very sensitive investigation, it is a very, very serious matter that no one should take lightly.

the special counsel refers to Plame as "a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years" IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA, JUDITH MILLER Decided February 15, 2005

At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Libby Indictment

The speculation at KOS, and I hear also on Chris Matthews, is that Fitzgerald is/was in a battle about his authority in this investigation with the DOJ. The "Sealed vs Sealed" story is said to be about this, US vs Fitzgerald or visa versa . . .

Are there historical precedents for phone companies participating in government eavesdropping? Yes. After World War II, the NSA's predecessor, the Army Signal Security Agency, sent representatives to the major telegraph companies and asked for cooperation in getting access to all telegraph traffic entering or leaving the United States. The companies complied, over the objections of their lawyers. When these practices came to light as part of a 1976 investigation into intelligence abuses, President Gerald R. Ford extended executive privilege, which shielded those involved from testifying publicly, to the telecommunications companies on the recommendation of then chief-of-staff Dick Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, according to the Project on Government Oversight.

Did Karl Rove lie to investigators in the fall of 2003? If so, why is he not being prosecuted for it?

Does Fitz no longer believe Rove and Bob Novak coordinated their stories about their July 9 conversation?

Is Fitzgerald absolving everyone in the White House Iraq Group of criminal culpability?

Who was Robert Novak's source? Who was Bob Woodward's source? Who was Walter Pincus's source?

Why did mainstream reporters (David Schuster of MSNBC comes to mind) say a few weeks ago they believed Rove would be charged? That seemed to be the consensus of opinion. What changed?

I'll believe it's over when I hear it from the horse's mouth

"Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said he would not comment on Mr. Rove's status."

That's not the big one, but it does raise questions many bloggers and reporters have begun asking today. If Rove is no longer a "target" or "subject" in the Plame leak case, why doesn't Samborn or Fitzgerald just tell the people the simple truth? It appears that the truth is not simple.

Fitzgerald met with chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan before he notified Rove. Hogan has been overseeing the grand juries in the CIA leak case.

Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined comment. Asked if the CIA leak investigation is still continuing, Samborn said, "I'm not commenting on that as well at this time."