In response to Monday's New York Daily News article reporting that a high-level White House official had flipped, I speculated that it was Karl Rove, and that he had decided to throw Cheney and Libby under the bus. It turned out that the News article was not referring to Rove. But with today's Daily News article, I'm again drawn to this theory.

I have just written a piece outlining the theory. But, I'm stuck on whether Rove would also try to save Cheney, even though he blames him for this whole mess, as a means of protecting Bush's legacy -- or whether, Cheney can't be saved from being at least an unindicted co-conspirator because of the timeline of Wilson's allegations, so he didn't.

Before publishing it, and perhaps making a total fool of myself, I'd like a national MSM reporter who has been covering the story to read it. If any happen to read this and are interested, please e-mail me.

Update: I think I've found my answer. No need for anyone to read it. I'm refining it and will be publishing it soon, probably in bits and pieces.

Raw Story scoops another exclusive -- David Wurmser is now cooperating with Fitzgerald.

...those close to the investigation say that a second Cheney aide,
David Wurmser, has agreed to provide the prosecution with evidence that the leak was a coordinated effort by Cheney's office to discredit the agent's husband. Her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, was one of the most vocal critics of the Iraq war.

Raw Story also reports that sources advise that John Hannah is not getting immunity but taking a deal in exchange for cooperation. If this report of what Hannah and Wurmser have said is true, and I stress the "if," it is all Fitz would need.

The sources say that Hannah and Wurmser were given orders by senior officials in Cheney’s office in June 2003 to leak Plame’s covert status and identity in an attempt to muzzle Wilson. The former ambassador had been a thorn in administration’s side since May 2003, when he began questioning claims that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. and its neighbors in the Middle East. (emphasis supplied.)

They fall like flies, the closer it gets to Indictment time. One more word of caution. Treat this kind of testimony with extreme skepticism as to its veracity. It is testimony that has been purchased with promises of leniency. Freedom is a commodity far more precious than money. The incentives to lie and exaggerate are enormous.

Andrew Sullivan, who admits his sourcing is light, is talking about Colin Powell's possible cooperation with Fitzgerald with respect to the memo on Air Force One. I thought he did that a long time ago. But as I mentioned in one of my posts last week, I had no idea he might have given up Ari Fleischer.

Digby links to last Tuesday night's Hardball Transcript. I was reading it and noticed something I never quite caught before. Mitchell said it was Colin Powell who testified Ari Fleischer read the June 9 classified memo on Air Force One:

MITCHELL: We also know that, that paragraph, that document was circulated on Air Force One as the president was flying to Africa, that Ari Fletcher saw it, Colin Powell testified to that. And that could be one of the key facts in this.

Think Progress has compiled a handy list of right-wing myths about the Valerie Plame Leaks investigation - and the facts that show they are myths.

The National Journal's Hotline has a list of everyone who has testified in Plamegate or been interviewed by Fitzgerald.

We're in another holding pattern. Blogometer and Memorandum are the places to catch what you may have missed yesterday.

Update: Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post has an terrific compilation of yesterday's and this morning's MSM and blog coverage. I also like Talent Show's post on Rove and Bush; Jeff Greenfield of CNN on The New York Times and Miller; and everything Laura Rozen at War and Piece is writing.

Tom Maguire has a new, long post up about Miller and Libby.

Murray Waas, one of the most reliable Plamegate reporters since the beginning of this sordid story, has a long and juicy column today at the National Journal. The first part of the article relates to possible perjury charges against Lewis "Scooter" Libby as a result of discrepancies between his and Judith Miller's grand jury testimony, particularly with respect to their July 8 meeting and June 23 conversation.

Far more interesting and significant are the many details Murray so cogently puts together on whether Libby tried either to discourage Miller from testifying or to influence her testimony so it would match what he told the grand jury.

If grand jurors believe that Libby tried to influence Miller's testimony, not only could it result in an obstruction of justice or witness tampering charge, it could make them distrustful of everything Libby told them. Put another way, in instances in which the grand jury has to weigh Libby's version against that of other witnesses, the grand jury might decide that someone who tried to discourage another witness from testifying probably did so because he had done something wrong-- like lie -- rather than because he forgot about a conversation or its details.

NBC Reporter David Schuster just said on Hardball that the grand jury will be meeting two more days this week and maybe into next week. Since any indictments won't be public until they are done, it doesn't look like tomorrow is the day.

If there are last minute plea deals, the details will be contained in written plea agreements. For any deals that involve reduced charges from those the grand jury might otherwise indict on, Fitzgerald will want the deals iron-clad and signed before releasing this grand jury. If a deal falls through, he'll need to have the grand jury still in session to issue a last minute indictment.

Also, the grand jury could still be hearing evidence from officials who are making last minute deals.

Arianna continues on her Judy mission with this latest that includes a photo of Arianna, Judy and others amongst the Aspen trees, right after having heard Karl Rove marvel at how we would be hailed as liberators in Iraq. Take a minute and read it.

US News and World Report says rumors of Cheney's impending resignation are flying around DC - as well as speculation Bush would appoint Condi Rice to replace him - and wouldn't that be the ultimate Machiavellian move?

I don't buy it. I think this will be Cheney's position to the very end. [hat tip Patriot Daily.]

Raw Story reports that Cheney Aide John Hannah is cooperating with Fitzgerald. If it's true, I'm not surprised. In John Hannah and Lewis Libby Still Key in Plame Probe, I wrote:

I think this UPI article by Richard Sale from February 5, 2004 is right on the money.

Reuters is speculating that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald may be offering putative defendants one last chance to make a deal in the Valerie Plame investigation.

The prosecutor investigating the outing of a covert CIA operative has yet to say whether he will bring charges, but he has decided to announce decisions in the case in Washington rather than Chicago, where he is based, his spokesman said on Monday....It is unusual for Fitzgerald's office to offer comment on any aspect of the case and Monday's statement led some observers to wonder if it might be a signal that a decision was imminent or that Fitzgerald was trying to increase pressure on potential targets to cut a deal.

It has to be a tempting offer for several of them.

Bump and Update: Here's the Daily News story:

Cheney's name has come up amid indications Fitzgerald may be edging closer to a blockbuster conspiracy charge - with help from a secret snitch. "They have got a senior cooperating witness - someone who is giving them all of that," a source who has been questioned in the leak probe told the Daily News yesterday.

*****
Original Post:

Raw Story reports that the New York Daiy News will report in Tuesday's edition that a high level White House official has flipped and is now helping Fitzgerald.

The ever-secretive Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald announced today that the outcome of the Valerie Plame leak investigation will be announced in Washington, not Chicago.

"If and when there would be any announcement, it would be made in Washington," said Randall Samborn, Fitzgerald's spokesman....It is unusual for Fitzgerald's office to offer comment on any aspect of the case and Monday's statement led some observers to wonder if it might be a signal that a decision was imminent or that Fitzgerald was trying to increase pressure on potential targets to cut a deal.

That tells me there will be indictments. The case is in D.C., and anyone indicted will have to surrender and appear for court there. If there weren't going to be indictments, Fitzgerald could make that announcement from anywhere.