Plame Gossip - Big Indications?

For those of you who want Rove to go down, I have a little support. On Hardball tonight, after watching Matthews slobber all over Mitt Romney, they had a segment on Plame. It opened with a taped segment from David Schuster in which he said that Fitzgerald talked to V. Novak a month ago about the Novak/Luskin conversation, then went back recently telling her, "I need it under oath." (paraphrase - transcript isn't out til tomorrow.)

If he saw her evidence as exculpatory, there would be no reason to bring her in to repeat it on the record under oath, unless her testimony conflicted with someone else's, and he saw this conflict as something he might have to present in a grand jury or in court. I find it difficult to believe that he would need it under oath if he wasn't intending to indict.

Then there's that little matter of Fitzgerald apparently reading evidence into the grand jury last Thursday. Do you do that if you don't intend to idict someone? (maybe not Rove, maybe Woodward's source?)

Also, in the coming soon category, Vandehei repeated that a source had said that this Luskin Novak conversation was the last thing Fitzgerald had to look at before making a decision on an indictment. (again paraphrase.) So with the testimony in, is there much left to do?

Bottom line, the more we know about this eleventh hour hail mary by Luskin, the less likely it looks to keep Rove from being indicted. If it's gonna be before Christmas, it'll have to be this week or early next, so keep tuned in.

And a question to comment on if you like, I've pretty much had my head down watching the twists and turns of this long running Plame saga, and for some reason, last night, I looked up and thought, "what would a Rove indictment really mean for Bush, the administration, the Republicans, the country?" I have no real answer at this point, but if you've got one, feel free to drop it in the comments. Thanks - Mike