Well, it looks like we’re gonna miss the chance to see Karl Rove dragged out of the White House in handcuffs. Even worse, the speculation that Rove made a deal seems to be wrong as well, but as Jeralyn notes in the comments section of TalkLeft, it all depends on what the definition of “deal” is :

I still think Rove incriminated Cheney and others in the VP’s office — he’s just not getting anything for it officially. That’s a big deal, because if he were, Libby’s lawyers would have to be told of the deal and could use it in cross-examination if Rove testified at trial. Now, Fitz has preserved Rove’s reputation which could make him a star witness.

Perhaps this was Fitz’s intention — to create an unimpeachable witness against Libby and others.
. . .
Rove went in on a high wire, without a 5k or deal or promises and Fitz either decided to believe him or for other reasons, such as to preserve his integrity as a witness against others, not to charge him.

Either way, Luskin has maintained all along he cooperated fully with no guarantees and now has been told Rove will not be charged. So legally, there is no deal. But that doesn’t mean Fitz didn’t decide to reward Rove.

Still speculation, but it does explain a lot more than the Rove-preferred storyline that Fitzgerald interviewed the guy five times and concluded that “Official A” is innocent. I’m sure the Fitzmas carolers are just going to turn their attention to Cheney, but I’ve got better things to do than pin all of my hopes on our justice system punishing a rich and powerful person for crimes they’ve committed.