Bump and Update: Rove attorney Robert Luskin sent me this denial of Truthout's report:

"It is insane and nonsensical, equal parts bizarre innuendo and alleged facts that do not square with reality or the American legal system. Truthout's stubborn nuttiness to the contrary, some times things are simply as they appear: Mr. Fitzgerald completed his investigation, reviewed the evidence, and concluded that it simply does not support a charge. There never was -- not for a second -- any secret meetings at my office, plea negotiations, secret sealed (or not so sealed, as the case may be) indictments, or last minute concessions."

*******
Original Post
New from Truthout: Still Insists Rove Was Indicted

New today from Truthout: They are standing by the key details of Jason Leopold's May 13 article reporting Karl Rove was indicted. It's a long explanation, but here's the key detail from a legal point of view:

Yes, it does appear that Truthout was used, but not lied to or misled. The facts appear to have been accurate. We reported them, and in so doing, apparently became an instrument. From all indications, our reports, first on May 13 that Rove had been indicted, and then on June 12 when we published case number "06 cr 128," forced Rove and Luskin back to the table with Fitzgerald, not once but twice. They apparently sought to avoid public disclosure and were prepared to do what they had to do to avoid it.

TL readers may remember that my first foray into investigative reporting occurred after Jason Leopold's May 13 article stating that Karl Rove had been indicted. After Byron York reported that Mark Corallo, Karl Rove's media spokesman, denied speaking with Jason, I spoke with Jason and published his account of his conversations with Corallo. Then I spoke with Corallo and published his denials.

Corallo said Jason had misrepresented himself as Sunday Times (London) reporter Joe Lauria.

In Sunday's Washington Post, Joe Lauria details his encounter with Jason and conversations with Mark Corallo, which he says he learned about from my post on Corallo's statements.

I'm very glad to see that Marc Ash of Truthout yesterday published a "stand down" on Jason Leopold's May 13 article reporting that Karl Rove had been indicted.

Yesterday, most Mainstream Media organizations published reports about a letter supposedly received by Karl Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. As an example of the supposed letter's contents, TIME Magazine stated that, "Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said or wrote, 'Absent any unexpected developments, he does not anticipate seeking any criminal charges against Rove.'"

Truthout of course published an article on May 13 which reported that Karl Rove had in fact already been indicted. Obviously there is a major contradiction between our version of the story and what was reported yesterday. As such, we are going to stand down on the Rove matter at this time. We defer instead to the nation's leading publications.

Ash also, appropriately in my view, defends Jason Leopold:

Karl Rove may be skating in PlameGate, but there are a lot of lingering, unanswered questions. Here's a few that come to mind.

• Did Karl Rove lie to investigators in the fall of 2003? If so, why is he not being prosecuted for it?

• Does Fitz no longer believe Rove and Bob Novak coordinated their stories about their July 9 conversation?

• Is Fitzgerald absolving everyone in the White House Iraq Group of criminal culpability?

• Who was Robert Novak's source? Who was Bob Woodward's source? Who was Walter Pincus's source?

• Why did mainstream reporters (David Schuster of MSNBC comes to mind) say a few weeks ago they believed Rove would be charged? That seemed to be the consensus of opinion. What changed?

Update: Swopa at Needlenose has some questions of her own.

Jim Vanderhei in the Washington Post reports:

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove will not be indicted in the CIA leak investigation, his attorney announced yesterday, a decision that signals that a special prosecutor's probe is unlikely to threaten any other Bush administration officials.

With Rove's situation resolved, the broader leak investigation is probably over, according to a source briefed on the status of the case.

David Johnston in the New York Times reports:

Truthout seems to be using Sealed Case 128 to justify not revealing Jason Leopold's sources for his May 13 article reporting Karl Rove had been indicted.

Yes, there has been a sealed case 06cr00128 styled Sealed v. Sealed on the District Court's docket (available through Pacer) since it was filed on May 17. It says "no further information is available" or something like that. It is still sealed, I've checked several times since then. If my handwritten notes are correct, it's the only District Court criminal case filed between May 9 (case 122) and May 18 (case 131) that remains sealed.

But, I can't agree with Truthout that sealed case 128 may validate Jason's article and therefore justify not disclosing the sources who told them Rove had been indicted. Note, I said Truthout, not Jason. Jason was on Ed Schultz today (you can listen here) and made it clear that it is no longer his decision but his publisher's (Truthout) whether to out his sources as he once promised he would do if the May 13 article proved false.

Sometimes people just don't know when to cry "uncle." I do. I asked Robert Luskin this morning if Karl Rove has made a deal with Fitzgerald. His response:

There has never, ever been any discussion of a deal in any way, shape or form.

Which is exactly what Luskin told me weeks ago. It's over, folks. Karl Rove will not be charged with a crime. He's cooperated with Fitzgerald by testifying to the grand jury five times and providing whatever information he had without a safety net. Without a 5k. Without assurances he would not be indicted. That's a hell of a risk, but Luskin pulled it off. My hat's off to Luskin.

I opined repeatedly on TalkLeft and HuffPo that Karl Rove would be charged at least with making a false statement to investigators in the fall of 2003 before a grand jury was convened -- the Martha Stewart crime. That was wrong.

I'm ready to put this to bed. Karl Rove walked. He's one of the rare subjects of an investigation who was able to talk his way out of an Indictment.

And yes, I think Jason needs to out his sources. If there was and will be no Indictment of Rove, his sources lied. If any are lawyers at Patton Boggs, I hope they lose their jobs and their law licenses.

Patrick Fitzgerald has written a letter to Karl Rove's lawyer informing him that Karl Rove will not be charged with a crime in PlameGate.

In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

....In his statement Mr. Luskin said he would not address other legal questions surrounding Mr. Fitzgerald's decision. He added, "In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."

Kudos to Mr. Luskin who did a heckeva job for Karl Rove.

Update: Here is the official press release (received by e-mail from Rove spokesperson Mark Corallo):

Murray Waas has a new article on PlameGate with the inside scoop on why Ashcroft recused himself in the Valerie Plame leaks investigation.

Shorter version: The FBI had evidence Libby lied about where he first heard about Plame (his handwritten notes showing it was Cheney who told him) and suspected Karl Rove and Bob Novak made up a cover story as early as October, 2003. It's a great read.

What's taking so long for the investigation to conclude? I wonder whether Fitz still isn't looking for evidence (or a confirming witness) to show Cheney's involvement was not limited to instructing others to attack Wilson's statements on uranium, WMD's and Iraq but that he also instructed aides to attack Wilson personally and tell reporters his wife worked for the CIA and the trip was nepotism.

Update: Scroll to the bottom to see Rove Spokesperson Mark Corallo's response to Murray's article:

Murray Waas has a new article on the Valerie Plame leaks investigation, disclosing that federal agents became suspicious of Karl Rove and Bob Novak because of a telephone conversation in which Novak reached out to assure Rove he would protect him as his source. The conversation was on September 29, 2003, three days after it became public that the Justice Deparment was opening a criminal investigation into the leak.

Sources said that Ashcroft received a special briefing on the highly sensitive issue of the September 29 conversation between Novak and Rove because of the concerns of federal investigators that a well-known journalist might have been involved in an effort to not only protect a source but also work in tandem with the president's chief political adviser to stymie the FBI.

Murray reports that Rove disclosed the conversation to investigators and to the grand jury.

Waas further reports investigators were suspicious because Rove and Novak's versions of their July 9, 2003 telephone call were so similar.

Karl Rove is going about business as usual. He met with the Republican rank and file today about immigration. This doesn't sound like a man who fears an imminent indictment, although, even if he did, what choice would he have but to carry on his regular duties?

The media also seems to be letting up on the attacks on Jason Leopold. Keith Olbermann on Countdown last night noted (as I did yesterday morning) that Jason Leopold beat the the New York Daily News by two months in reporting about Robert Grenier's connection to the Scooter Libby case. Jason's article was written March 18, the day after Libby's lawyers revealed it in a pleading.

Keith said:

MSNBC reporter David Shuster said on Hardball tonight. Crooks and Liars has the video:

Rove's legal team and former prosecutors tracking the investigation expect Patrick Fitzgerald to announce a decision at any time.

Rove's legal team tells me differently. Rove spokesman Mark Corallo told me a few minutes ago that as they have been saying for weeks, the timing is still unknown and there is nothing new to suggest it will be tomorrow or even this week. In fact, "we have no expectation on timing anymore. "

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, earlier today confirmed to me that "there has never been any discussion of any plea under any circumstances whatsoever." He added, "as a defense lawyer, you'll understand that if a prosecutor hasn't figured out whether or not he thinks a charge is appropriate, plea discussions are a bit premature."