When the National Review starts speculating about the immanent indictment of Karl Rove you know things are getting serious. Are they laying the groundwork for their counterspin?

Byron York writes:

There have been rumors flying around Washington in the last few days that Karl Rove, the president’s top political adviser, might soon be indicted in the CIA leak investigation.

Well, no duh. But there is reason for the rumors.

…it is true that there is growing nervousness among people who support Rove’s side in the case. They know that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, in addition to presenting some new evidence to a new federal grand jury, has also re-presented previously-gathered evidence to that grand jury. To most observers, that suggests Fitzgerald could be planning to indict someone.

And everyone knows that Karl Rove initially neglected to tell either the FBI or Fitzgerald about his conversations with Matt Cooper.

Rove’s supporters also know that the time is about right for something to happen…

If Rove were to be indicted — and for all anyone on the outside knows, there might be someone else in Fitzgerald’s sights — most people knowledgeable about the case believe charges would stem from the presidential adviser’s testimony about his brief July 11, 2003, conversation with Time magazine’s Matthew Cooper.

Rove’s strategic forgetfulness obstructed Fitz’s investigation but the National Review really doesn’t think that is a big deal. Remember when they let Clinton off the hook because he was never found guilty of violating Paula Jones’s civil rights? Well, they are nothing if not logically consistent.

As far as anyone outside the investigation knows, Fitzgerald does not have a problem with testimony from Rove’s second, third, and fourth appearances before the grand jury. In addition, it appears that Rove, like Libby, would not be charged with violating any of the underlying laws in the case — either the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act. So for now, the agonizing question for Rove’s supporters is whether Fitzgerald believes Rove’s earlier testimony involving Cooper constituted the crimes of making false statements (in the case of the FBI interview) or perjury (in the grand jury testimony).

Rove’s supporters believe it would be a weak case, a good deal weaker than the perjury and obstruction case Fitzgerald has made against Libby, which itself was somewhat undermined when it turned out that there was at least one significant part of that story — Libby’s conversations with the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward — that Fitzgerald didn’t know about at the time he indicted Libby. Still, it’s possible Fitzgerald will forge ahead, in part because his much-publicized, two-year investigation has so far produced relatively meager results. After intense probing, and working with virtually unlimited power and discretion, the hard-charging prosecutor has succeeded in indicting one person, Libby, although not for an underlying offense, and disrupting or marring the careers of journalists Judith Miller, Cooper, Woodward, and, most recently, Time’s Viveca Novak. Some Fitzgerald watchers find it difficult to believe that he will close up shop and go home with a record like that.

Poor Rove. It’s unlikely that Fitz will overlook his multiple false statements, obstructions, and instances of outright perjury. He might even put poor Rove in jail. And to think that all Clinton got was an impeachment.