It's unlikely that 'Official A' (Rove) will be indicted.

[Kablooie]

The only thing he has on Rove is revealing the CIA agent to a reporter.

He went out of his way to explain that proving this to be a crime is very difficult. He also said that if a crime is discovered but there isn't enough evidence to convict, a charge will not be brought.

Unless there is some new, damning evidence, I think this investigation is nearing an end.

Rove is a free and relieved fat man.

[Kagemusha]

1. I thought the problem for Rove was lying about it.

If Rove had no need to know then the secrecy violation aspect might arguably fall on Libby too.

[Teaser]

2. Doubtful.

The Washington Post is reporting that Fitzgerald was ready to indict, but Rove offered him some information he wanted, and Fitz is waiting and seeing about the info.

My prediction is there will still be an indictment.

[thinkingwoman]

4. OH, have you got a link

to that WP article?

[Teaser]

12. link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102800153.html

Rove provided new information to Fitzgerald during eleventh-hour negotiations that "gave Fitzgerald pause" about charging Bush's senior strategist, said a source close to Rove. "The prosecutor has to resolve those issues before he decides what to do."

[hiaasenrocks]

16. Thank you for that! n/t

[FVZA_Colonel]

20. I'm sure some might say the information could exonherate Rove.

It's very unlikely that Rove would have kept such information until now, but I suppose it is possible (though, as I basically said, not probable).

[thinkingwoman]

22. Thanks!

I appreciate it.

[LSparkle]

6. YOU got it right !!!

That's EXACTLY it. Luskin and company were described as "furiously" trying to avoid an indictment and I think all they've done is bought themselves some additional time.

[LSparkle]

8. David Gergen also agrees with you -- on Tweety now

He's convinced that there's still a good chance Rove will be indicted.

[LSparkle]

3. WRONG ...

I'm sure he has PLENTY of damning evidence -- much of it came in only during the past week -- and he's just tying up the loose ends.

[Kablooie]

5. I sure hope I'm wrong!

Whatever happens though, I trust that Fitz has done a thorough and honorable job. If Rove isn't indicted, there probably really isn't enough to indict him.

[Cha]

15. That must be Some "additional

information" that rove gave up to Fitz for him to stave off on an indictment and "figure out what to do with it"!

[BillZBubb]

7. Maybe, but it seems strange that Rove wasn't named

in Libby's indictment. If Rove was free and clear, his name would have been used instead of "Official A". Every other witness against Libby's statements was named.

I think the jury is still out on Rove's status (Pun Intended).

[LSparkle]

9. self delete

[Geek_Girl]

18. That's what I think too

If a official A is off the hook then why keep his name a secret and name everyone else.

[Zen Democrat]

26. There well may be a sealed indictment with Official A's name on it.

Just waiting for those "loose ends". Fitz can't talk about any sealed indictment - and it would explain the Official A designation.

[thinkingwoman]

24. That's a good point. nt

[Walt Starr]

10. Ahhh, the naysayers are out in full force this evening

Yeah. I see you.

[MADem]

29. Not even the least bit subtle, either, are they? n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. The indictment articulates an iron-clad case...

for further indictments for both Libby and "Official A" for the crime of violating their non disclosure agreements.

All that is needed is a conviction or a guilty plea on the obstruction of justice charge.

[goodhue]

13. I agree.

But beware being labeled a mole for not spewing party line.

[KerryOn]

14. What makes you think Official A is Rove? Did Frtiz tell you? n/t

[Kablooie]

17. Yeah. I talked with Frtiz last night and he told me.

[Jazzgirl]

19. 'Official A' is Bolton.

I hope like hell he is indicted!

Edited for spelling.

[BillZBubb]

27. Bolton was State Dept. , "Official A" was WH.

So, I don't think you are correct.

[against all enemies]

21. You have no idea, why post something as fact?

The investigation is still open. They don't have grand juries for fun.

[porphyrian]

23. "The only thing he has on Rove is revealing the CIA agent to a reporter."

I didn't know you were working the case.

:eyes:

[WA98296]

25. Then why keep the finger on Rove? Why not just let him go?

He is still being investigated according to his lawyer. At the least Fitz is keeping the pressure on him...so why? Opinions?

[BillZBubb]

28. To get the porcine prevaricator to "turn".

If Rover spills the beans, the whole conspiracy comes apart.