It strikes me, as I read all the news relating to Karl Rove and the Valerie Plame matter, that we know a lot less about this case than we think we do. The Special Prosecutor's office and the Grand Jury have leaked little, if at all. This, of course, hasn't stopped the partisans from making something out of nothing, building their cases in the press and on the 'net out of very few facts and any number of wishful assumptions. I am in receipt of a couple of mass-mailed messages that argue the case, some in each direction, and while some of the arguments will prove to be true, I think it'll be more a matter of dumb luck than because of any cogent analysis of what's known.
That said, I thought I'd offer up a smidgen of admitted guesswork here. All the pro-Rove e-mails I've received and much of the online spinners assert that Rove couldn't possibly be guilty of leaking the identity of an undercover C.I.A. agent because, they say, Ms. Plame was not undercover. Perhaps that will prove to be true but I have to wonder. Seems to me that if I'm the Prosecutor in this matter, the first thing I do is take the testimony of some high-level C.I.A. official and ask, "Was Valerie Plame undercover?" If he says no, then game's over and we can send the Grand Jury home with our thanks and some lovely parting gifts. If he says yes, then doesn't that become the operating assumption of the Grand Jury proceedings? They may or many not find enough evidence of a crime to return indictments against anyone in particular…but if this were, say, an inquiry into a possible murder, it wouldn't go on this long unless someone was willing to testify the first day that someone had been murdered.
At the same time, I think those eager to see Rove tumble downhill are leaping too quickly to the assumption that, since he's the evil genius who knows all, it's inarguable that he knew all. Already, this part of the story is turning from "Rove told reporters" to "Reporters told Rove." I think it's been established that Rove was more involved than his past statements on this matter indicated but so far, that's more of a political embarrassment than a certainty of indictment. I also see a lot of attempts to read things into each lawyer's statement that may not be there.
Still, all this is just me guessing. We may all be surprised…especially those of us who mistake all the blind speculation for solid info on what's going on. This happens with all these investigations but usually, we get a lot more leaks and facts so the spin isn't quite so far ahead of them.