I for one, almost from the begining, felt that Cheney was more likely the kingpin of this operation.

[Luskin] reiterated [to Raw Story] that Rove has been cooperating fully since day 1. Shorter version: Rove is an American hero, not a rat. Sorry, but I don't buy it. Luskin and Rove obviously would prefer Rove to come off as Mr. Truth, Justice and the American Way -- a helpful White House official who told the truth and let the chips fall where they may -- rather than as a rat who sold out his confederates in order to avoid jail -- but no matter how they try to whitewash it, it's a rollover.

Perhaps this was Fitz's intention -- to create an unimpeachable witness against Libby and others.

Luskin had just received a fax from Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, saying that he was formally notifying Luskin that absent any unexpected developments, he does not anticipate seeking any criminal charges against Rove.

If Rove offers to tell the truth from here on out (i.e. cooperate). And Fitz says if you do I "do not anticipate seeking charges". Has he struck a deal? Or simply agreed to be truthful without having to publically announce any "deal".

We shouldn't look to the criminal justice system to solve every conceivable social and political ill. And that includes going to war under false pretenses, which we did.

As for Charlie Rose, I confirmed it with the pbs website, Armitage is on today. I can't find any way to stream it, but you can check there for your local station

Leoplod just said he wouldn't out his sources on Ed's show. He now says that it's a group decision with Truth Out.

"Karl Rove walked. He's one of the rare subjects of an investigation who was able to talk his way out of an Indictment."

"I view that as the fault of the voters who put Bush into office in 2000 and 2004. It's time to focus on getting him and the Republicans out..."

As to why Fitz would only say he doesn't anticipate indicting Rove rather than saying Rove has been cleared and never will be indicted, consider this. What if he publicly cleared him and Rove then testified for Libby's defense team and said something different than he told the grand jury? Fitz needs to remain free to charge Rove in that event. Also, if the investigation is continuing, new information could develop, particularly if Fitz continues to turn putative defendants. One might convince him Rove lied. Both of these situations are unlikely to occur, but Fitz needs to protect his ability to act against Rove if they did happen. That's what lawyers do, they try to cover all the bases.

I asked Robert Luskin this morning if Karl Rove has made a deal with Fitzgerald. His response: There has never, ever been any discussion of a deal in any way, shape or form.

In the end, however, Mr. Rove was not indicted. And Mr. Wilson was exposed in the bipartisan report issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee two years ago, in which the panel demonstrated that Mr. Wilson misrepresented numerous aspects of his account of the trip he took to Niger in 2002. The fantasy Rove indictment should be a cautionary tale for the mainstream media.