In this transcript from today's Meet the Press:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/...
Robert Novak discussed some issues related to Patrick Fitzgerald's prosecution of the Plame Leak. During this discussion, he indirectly confirmed that there Rove was not indicted. Since there are still people here who believe the Truthout/Leopold hoax that Rove was indicted back in May, this may fall outside their paradigm, but for the rest of us, its a datapoint.
more below:
The key passage:
"Mr. Fitzgerald asked my lawyer not, not to divulge our, our contacts. He advised that that was good, good advice until his investigation was completed. When he announced that Karl Rove would not be indicted, my attorney went to Mr. Fitzgerald and asked him if it was--if that request now no longer held true, and he said that his investigation had been concluded as far as I was concerned."
So, when Novak's lawyer met with Fitzgerald, on the basis of Rove not being indicted (and thus, the pressure being off Novak), there could have been several outcomes:
a) Fitzgerald neither confirming or denying that Rove was indicted. In this case, Novak's lawyer would not communicate to Novak that the heat was off, and that Novak should still keep his mouth shut.
b) Fitzgerald could have lied, and told the lawyer that Rove was not indicted, when in fact, Novak WAS indicted. This would prompt Novak to go public (as he did), but the other shoe would drop pretty quickly. This would be a career-ender for Fitzgerald, if true.
c) Fitzgerald could have told Novak's lawyer that Rove was indicted, and that Novak could go public. This is the "official" version as implied by Novak, and the most credible.