Michael Isikoff in Newsweek writes that when Deputy Attorney General James Comey leaves the Administration this week, he could be replaced by Bush Crony Robert McCallum.

The significance of this is that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, in charge of the Plame investigation, reports to the Deputy AG. So, if McCallum replaces Comey, Fitzgerald may find himself with reduced power - or no power at all.

Comey was the only official overseeing special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's leak investigation. With Attorney General Alberto Gonzales recused, department officials say they are still trying to resolve whom Fitzgerald will now report to. Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum is "likely" to be named as acting deputy A.G., a DOJ official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter tells NEWSWEEK. But McCallum may be seen as having his own conflicts: he is an old friend of President Bush's and a member of his Skull and Bones class at Yale.

• Murray Waas on the Libby-Miller meeting which I blog about here in ridiculously long post. Only those obsessed with the story should even bother with my post
• Arianna on Judith Miller
• Digby on Judith Miller and Karl Rove
• Digby on Libby and the Waiver
• Paul Begala in Huff Post on why Bush will pardon Rove
• Tom Maguire on Rove and Novak's long-standing friendship and on Russert's deal with Fitzgerald to discuss what he told Libby.

Murray Waas has a new column in which he says Judith Miller met with Lewis Libby on July 8, 2003, six days before Robert Novak published his column outing Valerie Plame Wilson. While much of what Waas writes today is more in the nature of a summary or wrap-up, I found this to be a "new dot" for me:

In an affidavit prepared by Miller to respond to the request [for documents requested in the subpoena], Miller said she "did not receive any documents" from the person she met, but declined to say who the person was that she met on July 8. In subsequent court papers filed in federal court by attorneys for Miller and The New York Times, the newspaper said that Miller "had no documents responsive" to Fitzgerald's request of any documents given to her on July 8, 2003.

But Miller's affidavit and other court filings by the Times -- and the narrow language contained therein -- did not say whether Miller might have read or reviewed any documents that might have brought to the July 8, 2003, meeting.

I think that's the crucial question at this point. Why would Miller and Libby meet in person unless it was to do something they couldn't do over the phone - like review a document. What we don't know is whether Miller showed Libby a document she received from another source or whether Libby showed Miller a document. Libby has testified and thus provided his version to Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald needs to question Miller to determine whether Libby told the truth.

Investigative reporter Murray Waas and Joseph Wilson were on Demcracy Now today discussing RoveGate, the White House Iraq Group and the Cheney connections. Here's the transcript, it's good stuff.

As I opined here, for me,

All roads still lead to the White House Iraq Group, Office of Special Plans and Defense Policy Board: Libby, Luti,John Hannah, Stephen Hadley, Robert Joseph, to name a few.

Not to forget, of course, that Karl Rove attended most of the White House Iraq group meetings.

No, Fitzerald, Cooper, Sauber, Rove , Luskin and Ginsberg is not the name of a law firm. Here are the dots.

I've been wondering why there has been no comment from Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, since the information came out about Rove's right and left hand aides being called to the grand jury last Friday. The LA Times reports Luskin declined comment. I haven't found anything with a comment from Luskin, but think this August 1 Legal Times interview (subscription required) with Richard Sauber, Matt Cooper's lawyer, is interesting and may shed some light on Luskin's silence. Sauber says that Fitzgerald isn't disclosing his hand, either in conversation or in body language.

LT: From all that you've heard and all of the people you have spoken to, what do you think Fitzgerald is aiming for?

RS: I spent a lot of time on the phone [with Fitzgerald] and in person. He was so careful not to give away anything -- even with body language -- any indication of what he was looking at or where he was going. It was quite astonishing how uncommunicative he was. So the short answer is, I don't know.

But the only clue is that he submitted some fairly extensive material under seal. Every judge who has commented on that [has said] how impressive the showing is and how important this case is to national security. All I can surmise is that he has a substantial amount of evidence to continue a fairly robust investigation. And it does involve classified material.

In the last month, three lawyers at TalkLeft (Last Night in Little Rock and Peter G (comments) and me) have warned about congressional hearings into RoveGate and the possibility that a la Oliver North, it might enable Bush administration wrongdoers to escape criminal liablility.

Crooks and Liars reports that today, Sen. Frank Lautenberg expressed a similar warning in this letter to the Republican chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees regarding hearings they plan to hold on Valerie Plame's outing.

In other RoveGate matters, read Digby on Novakula's tea leaves.

The New York Times reports Rove aides Susan Ralston and Israel Hernandez were questioned about Matthew Cooper's grand jury testimony during their grand jury stint last Friday - and the telephone call Cooper said he made to Karl Rove on July 11, which wasn't entered on Rove's phone log.

In an article in Time last month about his grand jury appearance, Mr. Cooper wrote that he had telephoned the White House and been transferred to Mr. Rove's office. "I believe a woman answered the phone and said words to the effect that Rove wasn't there," Mr. Cooper wrote, "or was busy before going on vacation. But then I recall she said something like 'hang on,' and I was transferred to him."

Mr. Cooper wrote that Mr. Rove told him that Ms. Wilson had worked at the C.I.A. and had been responsible for sending her husband to Africa. But Mr. Cooper added that Mr. Rove did not identify Ms. Wilson by name or suggest that he knew of her status as a covert officer.

Digby has an excellent post discussing whether former CIA director George Tenet was one of Novak's sources. Bob Somerby of Daily Howler is on this as well.

Remember this from Joe Wilson's book that I wrote about here? Could he be describing George Tenet?

There's an interesting debate on RoveGate today between Mickey Kaus and Arianna. Arianna updates here. It's mostly about whether Rove told Miller or Miller told Rove.

Tom Maguire weighs in here. And Matt Yglesias says he'd rather see Miller fall than Rove.

At any rate, it all sort of hinges on what the truth comes out to be, but it seems to me that a strong case can be made that wrecking Miller's career would be a preferable outcome here to wrecking Rove's.

I'd rather see Rove or someone else high up in the Bush Administration go down because it would hurt Bush and the Republicans, and that could influence the next election cycle. But I'm still not convinced Rove will go down as opposed to someone on Cheney's side of the office.

Think Progress tips us to this exclusive in today's The Note:

Based on ABC News sources (and our own video camera) it appears that at least two witnesses testified before the grand jury last Friday, both close associates of Karl Rove.

ABC News has learned that one was Susan Ralston, Rove's long-time right hand. The other, per ABC News' Jake Tapper, was Israel "Izzy" Hernandez, Rove's former left hand (and now a top Commerce Department official). It isn't clear if either had been asked to testify before last week.

This may or may not mean Fitgerald is going after Rove. The two witnesses could be providing evidence that corroborates Rove's version. It's interesting, but not quite up to being a "dot" yet.

The New York Times has an unilluminating article today on Robert Novak's disclosure yesterday that Valerie Plame's name could have been (but not that it was) obtained from Who's Who.

But, as Tom Maguire and Josh Marshall point out, (and TalkLeft discussed here)AP reporters Phelps and Royce wrote on July 21, 2003,

Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

Is Novak going to now say they are lying or mistaken - like he claimed yesterday about Bill Harlow? That might be futile since as I noted here, the Chicago Tribune on March 5, 2004, in reporting on the subpoenas issued by Fitgerald's grand jury, included this:

The third subpoena [by Fitzgerald] repeats an informal Justice Department document request to the White House last fall seeking records about staff contacts with Novak and two Newsday reporters, Knut Royce and Timothy Phelps, who reported July 22 that Plame was a covert agent and Novak had blown her cover.

Update: Arianna has an update of blogger coverage here.

Columnist Robert Novak breaks his silence today in a very self-serving column. He claims to be writing it against his lawyers' advice. It seems, Mr. Novak wants to clear his own name - and that is more important than the secrecy wishes of the prosecutor by which he has abided for the past two years.

In the course of a front-page story in last Wednesday's Washington Post, Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei quoted ex-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow describing his testimony to the grand jury. In response to my question about Valerie Plame Wilson's role in former ambassador Wilson's trip to Niger, Harlow told me she "had not authorized the mission." Harlow was quoted as later saying to me "the story Novak had related to him was wrong."