The New York Times succinctly recaps the Administration's prior statements on Karl Rove and the Valerie Plame leak:

In September 2003, Mr. McClellan said flatly that Mr. Rove had not been involved in disclosing Ms. Plame's name. Asked about the issue on Sept. 29, 2003, Mr. McClellan said he had "spoken with Karl Rove," and that it was "simply not true" that Mr. Rove had a role in the disclosure of her identity. Two weeks earlier, he had called suggestions that Mr. Rove had been involved "totally ridiculous." On Oct. 10, 2003, after the Justice Department opened its investigation, Mr. McClellan told reporters that Mr. Rove, Mr. Abrams and Mr. Libby had nothing to do with the leak.

Mr. McClellan and Mr. Bush have both made clear that leaking Ms. Plame's identity would be considered a firing offense by the White House. Mr. Bush was asked about that position most recently a little over a year ago, when he was asked whether he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked the officer's name. "Yes," he replied, on June 10, 2004.

I don't expect President Bush to fire Rove. So, will Rove spare the President the embarassment and resign? And where is Fitgerald headed now?

If Rove gets indicted, I still think it won't be for outing Valerie Plame. I think it's more likely it will be for either perjury to the grand jury, making false statements to investigators or conspiracy to obstruct justice or violate the law against outing operatives.

Meanwhile, Judith Miller sits in jail protecting someone, probably Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby.

Salon has a new primer on the confusing case. The New York Times recaps prior White House briefings about the leaks. (So does Billmon.)

Will Karl Rove resign? Or continue to confidently maintain he's done nothing wrong and bank on escaping Fitzgerald's clutches? And if Rove goes down, who's going to go down with him? My bet is it will be Cheney's staff.