Unidentified sources tell Raw Story's Jason Leopold that Fitzgerald will not be shutting down his probe in the Valerie Plame leaks case when he's finished with Karl Rove.

Individuals close to the probe say Fitzgerald is still investigating other unnamed White House officials. This part of the investigation, like that of Rove, is focusing on whether these officials committed perjury, obstruction of justice or lied to federal investigators during the early days of the investigation -- as opposed to violating an obscure law which makes it a crime to knowingly leak the name of an undercover CIA operative -- they say.

Raw Story reports that Fitzgerald is focused on the July 11, 2003 e-mail Karl Rove sent Stephen Hadley about Rove's call with Matthew Cooper. Did Karl Rove hide or purposely conceal the Stephen Hadley e-mail after Attorney General Gonzales ordered the production of e-mails and after the February 6 deadline for the White House to turn over subpoenaed contacts with reporters?

Rove's alleged failure to disclose his conversations with Cooper and Novak and the fact that he didn't turn over the Hadley email on two separate occasions is the reason he's been in Fitzgerald's crosshairs and may end up being indicted, people close to the investigation said.

It's also the reason Fitzgerald had grown suspicious at the time that Rove may have hid or destroyed evidence related to his role in the leak, they said, adding that Fitzgerald may have already been aware of the existence of the email, perhaps even obtaining a copy from a witness or another White House official, and waited to see if Rove would cite it or his conversations with Cooper in his grand jury testimony.

Raw Story connects the e-mail to Luskin's reported insistence that his tip from Time Reporter Viveca Novak occurred in February rather than in March or May as she testified:

Intrepid reporter Murray Waas is back with a new article in the National Journal on why Robert Novak called Karl Rove on July 9, 2003: It was to discuss Frances Fragos Townsend, "a former senior attorney in the Clinton administration's Justice Department whom President Bush had recently named to be his deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism."

In a nutsell, Waas' latest goes like this: Cheney and Libby objected to Frances Townsend because she might not approve harsh interrogation techniques or secret renditions. The President wanted Townsend for the job. Libby embarked on a campaign to discredit her. Rove embarked on a campaign to support her. Rove and Novak spoke about her and it was at the end of the call when Valerie Plame came up. Novak then wrote his trash piece on Townsend on July 10, and his Plame expose on July 14.

One-third of my way through the article, I thought this is Team Rove's latest attempt to blame Libby to clear Rove. [ Update: On a second read-through, I'm not sure about this. There's enough later in the article that hurts Rove to suggest this isn't coming from Team Rove.]

Robert Novak said Tuesday that people should ask President Bush who the Valerie Plame leaker is because he has to know. The White House gives a testy response, and then clams up.

"I don't know what he's basing it on," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan, declining to comment further.

Not quite a denial, is it? Sen. Schumer sent Bush a letter asking him to give up the identity of the leaker. And how much trouble is Karl Rove in?

Some Rove allies now fear he may be in more legal jeopardy than he was when Libby was charged.

Columnist Robert Novak gave a speech yesterday in Raleigh, N.C.

"I'm confident the president knows who the source is," Novak told a luncheon audience at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh on Tuesday. "I'd be amazed if he doesn't."

One other tidbit: Novak says his and Woodward's source probably are the same person:

Woodward, a Washington Post editor, recently disclosed that he, too, had been told by an administration figure about Plame's secret identity -- probably, he said, by the same source who told Novak.

Update from Firedoglake:

David Shuster reported on MSNBC on Dan Abrams show at 4:35 pm ET that they were informed yesterday eveing that the G/J was prepared to meet today with Patrick Fitzgerald. But as of today, Fitzgerald was not at the courthouse today, neither were the members of the G/J. Additionally, this is a period of high anxiety for the Rove side of things, according to Shuster.

Raw Story reports that Patrick Fitzgerald will be meeting with the grand jury tomorrow to present it with the depositions of Viveca Novak and Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's lawyer. RS reports Fitz will wrap up by the end of the year.

RS believes, as I do, that Fitzgerald will charge Rove with making a false statement to federal officials in October, 2003, prior to the time the grand jury was convened. Here's RS on Fitz's meeting last week with the grand jury:

A week ago, Fitzgerald briefed the second grand jury hearing evidence in the leak case for more than three hours. During that time, he brought them up to speed on the latest developments involving Rove and at least one other White House official, the sources said. The attorneys refused to identify the second person.

That would have to be Bob Woodward's source, whom the blogosphere has narrowed down to Stephen Hadley or Richard Armitage. I'll go with Stephen Hadley.

Raw Story had an article earlier today stating that John Hannah, who reportedly has a cooperation deal with Fitzgerald, probably for immunity, told Fitz that Rove first learned of Valerie Plame Wilson (although not by her maiden name) from Scooter Libby -- not from reporters, as he first told investigators.

Jane at Firedoglake reports that Washington Post reporter Jim VandeHei dropped a bombshell on Hardball tonight. Crooks and Liars has the video. The money quote (via Lexis.com) from Vandehei:

We still don`t know exactly where Karl Rove originally learned about Valerie Plame. That`s still one of the mysteries. We know one of them he had heard it from Hadley as just sort of chatter inside the office, but he had learned it earlier from some other place. And we still don`t know where that is.

Like Jane, I don't remember anyone reporting previously that Rove learned of Valerie Plame Wilson (by any name) from Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. But, it sounds right. [Update: Jane reports that Vandehei now says he misspoke on Hardball and meant to say Libby.] It's hard to believe they didn't discuss her, when Rove's e-mail to Hadley said "I didn't take the bait" and when they were both members of the White House Iraq Group.

Viveca Novak's first person account of what transpired between her and Karl Rove's lawyer is up (free link) at Time. It's a biggie. Shorter version (my interpretation): If Karl Rove doesn't get indicted for perjury, it will be because of Viveca Novak. Viveca tipped Luskin off that Karl Rove had talked to Matthew Cooper in either March or May, 2004, after his February grand jury appearance. That sent Luskin on the hunt for documentation, and when he found the Hadley e-mail, he turned it over to Fitz.

What's astonishing about the article is that Viveca didn't tell Time Magazine editors what she had done until after she had hired her own lawyer and debriefed with Fitzgerald. She didn't tell them until she got a formal subpoena. She's now on a "mutually agreed upon" leave of absence from the magazine.

The Washington Post reports that while Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's lawyer, had no comment on yesterday's grand jury proceedings,

"What I can say is, there's been no change in Karl's status since late October," he said. At that time, Fitzgerald told Luskin that Rove remained under investigation but that he would hold off on charging him because of information Luskin had provided late that month.

If, as the Washington Post previously reported, the information Luskin provided at the 11th hour concerned his conversation with Viveca Novak, then she is critical to Fitzgerald's decision. But perhaps she is only critical to Rove's avoiding a perjury charge for his testimony to the grand jury in February, 2004 when he didn't disclose his call with Cooper.

While Viveca may solve that problem for Rove, I don't see how she solves the problem of his failing to tell investigators in October, 2003, before the grand jury was convened, that he spoke to Robert Novak about Joseph Wilson's wife before Novak published his article. It has been reported that lawyers close to the case say that Rove told investigators he first learned of Plame Wilson when he read Novak's article.

Jane asks whether George Tenet could be Bob Woodward's source? I asked a while back whether George Tenet could have been Karl Rove's source? Libby and Rove reportedly assisted Tenet with his July 11, 2003 mea culpa for the 16 words.

Before that, Digby asked whether Tenet could have been a source for Novak. I followed up here.

Time correspondent Viveca Novak has hired a heavy hitter for her grand jury deposition with Patrick Fitzgerald tomorrow: Washington, D.C. criminal defense attorney Henry Schuelke.

His Martindale Hubbell profile lists his practice areas as:

White Collar Criminal Defense; Business Crimes; International Criminal Law; Federal Grand Jury; Monetary Crimes

Among his clients:

• Greenberg Traurig, who hired Schuelke in 2004 to investigate the $11 million in lobbying fees Jack Abramoff collected from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.

• Enron's Ben Glison, who pleaded guilty and took a five year prison sentence, but is not cooperating with the Government.

He's also had clients in Iran-Contra and Whitewater.

CBS reports that Fitzgerald and his deputies spent three hours with the Valerie Plame grand jury today. I suspect he was presenting Viveca Novak's deposition to them, which was probably taken at her lawyer's office. Maybe now that she has testified under oath, she will write a more detailed article about her involvment or lack thereof. [Update: Novak is going to testify tomorrow at a deposition.]

In related RoveGate news, the Washington Post has a very detailed portrait of Rove lawyer Robert Luskin. He says a few times he thinks Rove will be exonerated. I like what I read about Luskin, and I never joined the bandwagon of critics who have said he talked too much or indiscriminately to the media in defending Rove, but I wonder why he thinks Rove isn't facing charges for lying to investigators in the fall of 2003 before the grand jury was convened.

Jane is not impressed with the Luskin interview.

Update: Lawrence O'Donnell weighs in at Huffpo.