2. Will the two people I lost bets to please send me their snailmail addresses? (My email is mark [at] samefacts [dot] com.)
3. Fitzgerald hasn’t said anything in public. In particular, he hasn’t announced that the grand jury investigation is over. The rules don’t allow him to use the grand jury just to keep piling up evidence against Libby. So who’s he still after?
4. Jane Hamsher thinks Rove made a deal with Fitzgerald, and that Cheney is the target. Maybe. Jeralyn doubts it.
5. Jeralyn is surely right to say that Jason Leopold and Truthout ought to now keep their promise to reveal the identity of whoever told Leopold that Rove had been indicted. Don’t hold your breath.
6. The Wilsons seem to be threatening a civil suit. That would be fun.
7. If the Libby indictment proved that Fitzgerald was an out-of-control, partisan prosecutor, what does the Rove non-indictment prove?
8. The big disappointment isn’t that Rove wasn’t indicted now; it would have been a blow to Bush, but Bush isn’t running. The big disappointment was that the New York Times and Time Magazine collaborated with the White House to drag the case out past November 2004. If Libby had been indicted in the fall of 2004, Bush wouldn’t still be President.
9. Media Matters asks when the White House will start answering all the questions it hasn’t been answering to avoid interfering with an ongoing investigation. I’d estimate the Twelfth of Never as the most likely date. But to be fair, as far as we know the grand jury is still working, and for sure the Libby trial is in prospect, so the White House excuse is really as valid now as it was yesterday.
10. There’s always the hope that the Susan Ralston connection will get Rove entangled in the Abramoff scandal. Right now, the big-money corruption cases, and especially those such as MZM that involve looting the Defense, intelligence, and Homeland Security budgets, are in the center ring. The Plame affair, which looked huge in 2003, is now more or less a sideshow.