Does Judy Miller have a security clearance? If she does, giving her information isn't prima facie evidence of a security violation.

You wondered why Fitzgerald would't or didn't extend this grand jury to consider charges against Rove. I inferred from his comments at the press conference that he legally coud not extend this particular jury any further. He was specific in saying that he could use another jury to presumably bring an indictment if necessary as he was adamant that the investigation is not over - although the heavy lifting is.

drip

drip

drip

drip

drip

drip

drip

drip

She would need a pretty serious security clearance -- not just your run of the mill "I can see some classified documents" or "I can get into an area where people may be using classified documents" clearance, which is more typical for writers and others who aren't scientists or other experts with a need to know.

And I can't see how Judith Miller, in any capacity but especially as a reporter, would have a need to know this name. Revealing that information was an obvious, deliberate leak.

Next, Karl will be confronted with a large and intricate layer cake baked by that lovely Mr. Fitzgerald. Everyone will be watching so Karl will feel obliged to chow down on a slice,just to make nice. Helluva guy that Karl.

At first his tummy pain will seem like indigestion. Folks like Karl are good at denial. Soon the abdominal pain will exacerbate. At this point, Karl, a keen student of History, will recall Lucretia Borgia and her great admiration for Machiavelli.

Then he will spill his guts.

"In return for an agreement not to indict him today, Rove could have signed an agreement waiving his right to have charges brought by way of indictment."

The FRCP linked says:

(b) Waiving Indictment.

An offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year may be prosecuted by information if the defendant -- in open court and after being advised of the nature of the charge and of the defendant's rights -- waives prosecution by indictment.

So, that would have to happen "in open court" and I doubt that it would have been missed by the press.

We're already starting to hear the talking point that Libby simply "can't recall" where he first heard Valerie Plame's name. This is absurd.

This isn't about someone trying to remember a long-ago conversation -- a slight incident in a busy life that hadn't warranted consideration until the prosecutor came knocking 2 years later. We know that literally within minutes of Novak's column coming out in July 2003, there was furious talk that a crime had perhaps been committed; that national security was perhaps jeopardized. Are we really expected to believe that in such an environment Mr. Libby forgot conversations that happened in the days leading up to that disclosure?

Regarding waiving indictment-- although the "update" is correct that this is often done in plea agreements (in which prosecutors sometimes use an "information" that doesn't require grand jury approval), I think it would have been extremely unwise for Karl Rove and Robert Luskin to agree to waive indictment for Fitzgerald's convenience without a solid agreement in place for what would come in an information. Although the odds of a "no bill" are long indeed, you'd give up that roll of the dice only for some valuable concession from the government.

Fitzgerald answered this question well before your timestamp. This grand jury had served both its 18 month term and the one permitted 6 month extension and is therefore excused. It is routine, Fitzgerald said, for investigations that carry over past a single grand jury's term to turn to an already empaneled grand jury for further action, if necessary.

Another point to make. Although this particular grand jury's term had expired, there's nothing to prevent Fitzgerald from empaneling another grand jury. This is far from over. To most people, October 28th was the do-or-die date. It's not. It's merely the close of phase one. And lest we forget, there are still people's names in Libby's indictment that Fitzgerald has done nothing about (as far as we know). The counts in Libby's indictment carry stiff penalties and fines. Libby may decide that he'd rather turn than pay those penalties and fines. Libby is, after all, a lawyer. He knows exactly what's at stake. He knows what Fitzgerald wants and he can provide that, given a reason to do so.