Is this the end? Could the jig be up? Or are we watching one more well orchestrated opera from “the architect?”

Let’s quickly recap: Ambassador Joseph Wilson is sent to Niger to investigate yellowcake sales to Iraq. He finds no evidence of it, and eventually goes public with that fact, including the juicy tidbit that Bush’s 2003 State of the Union speech contradicts the findings Wilson presented. Soon after Wilson’s articles and talking head circuit, someone lets journalist Bob Novak (amongst others) know that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, may have been getting her husband a boondoggle assignment when he went to Niger. After all, the source (or sources) said, Plame is an agent for the CIA.

The story blows all sorts of things up. First, Plame – a covert agent – and the front company she works for are outed, wasting many years of CIA bricklaying. Second, the intelligence community loses one of its WMD experts at the exact time she will supposedly be needed most – not to mention Plame for all intents and purposes loses her job. Third, an enraged Wilson accuses the Bush administration of a smear campaign designed to intimidate whistle blowers from coming forward. He goes on the warpath.

With Wilson kicking up a storm, the CIA asks the Justice Department to look into his allegations (the outing of a CIA undercover agent is illegal under two different laws). They start an investigation; soon after then-Attorney General John Ashcroft recuses himself from the case, as he is too close to the focus; Federal District Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago takes over.

Fitzgerald conducts many interviews, including one of the President, about which Bush consults a private attorney (ever since the Clinton impeachment public attorneys can be forced to come forward with evidence against an elected official). Fitzgerald seems to be making slow progress, then he runs up against a roadblock. Journalists contacted by this source are refusing to give names, citing the need to protect press confidentiality.

Fitzgerald doesn’t bite, and takes two writers – Matt Cooper of Time Magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times, with Novak cutting a back room deal – to court. They refuse to speak, and progressively each ascending jurisdiction says the Constitution doesn’t protect them. Eventually they come to the end of the line when the U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear the case and the previous rulings stand. Given a deadline to open up or stand in contempt, Time Magazine tries to save Cooper by turning over all their pertinent internal memos and correspondence. The court wouldn’t have taken that as testimony, but in a shocking twister Cooper receives a “fairly dramatic” phone call the night before his last chance, giving him the go-ahead testify. Miller receives no such call, and she’s facing jail time from now to the end of the grand jury inquiry.

Who called Cooper, saving him from a cellmate named Snake? It has to be his informant, if Cooper felt free to speak. And who is the informant? Everything and everyone so far points to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove. A producer for Chris Matthews of MSNBC said Rove called in 2003, saying Plame is fair game. Numerous other journalists say they had similar contacts from Rove or knew of his contact with other members of the press, and some are starting to come forward now that the possibility of being subpoenaed is gone.

Rove and his lawyer, Robert Luskin, has given contradictory statements, first saying that Rove and Cooper never spoke, later saying Rove was interviewed by the correspondent but that the details of the interview were unknown, now backpedaling to a fairly soft statement that Rove never knowingly disclosed confidential information.

Liberals and Democrats are calling for Rove’s head, while Republicans are playing wait-and-see, but preparing to circle the wagons. This looks like a big mess for the G.O.P, with the most harmless possibility being a very embarrassing scandal, and the worst case being… well, let’s just say people are already asking what the President knew and when he knew it.

But what will really happen? This is going to lean towards the harmless side. Why? Though his tactics are ruthless, Karl Rove is very very good at what he does. He gave the go-ahead to Cooper to talk; no way Rove does that if it means sticking his neck in a noose. He’s got a plan.

And what is the plan? Well, assuming that the leak is pinpointed as coming from him, Rove’s going to claim he didn’t realize that Plame was undercover. If she’s a regular CIA employee, there’s no law broken in bringing her up. If Rove didn’t realize she was undercover then the law, amazingly, says he shouldn’t be charged with the outing. Now, how do you prove Rove knew what he was doing? Good luck.

Rove has been careful to say he never gave Plame’s name, and it appears that he covered his tracks just enough. Emails between Cooper and Time’s editors say Rove spoke about Wilson’s trip being sponsored by the former ambassador’s wife, but he didn’t actually say her name. Rove is going with the tact that he wasn’t trying to out Plame, just suggest that Wilson’s findings weren’t as official as they appeared. Any revelation about covert agents was an unfortunate and unintended side-affect.

Legally speaking, Rove is probably in the clear. He knows it, and that’s why he let Cooper speak. In a twisting of the knife, he most likely let Miller go to prison to punish The New York Times, a publication that the current administration has often had a testy relationship with, and also the source of Wilson’s first op-ed about his Niger trip.

Make no mistake, Rove knew what he was doing, and he did it very carefully so as to avoid getting in trouble. As Bill Israel, a journalism professor who taught with Rove at the University of Texas, told Capitol Hill Blue, “Rove once described himself as a die-hard Nixonite; he is, like the former president, both student and master of plausible deniability. Consequently, when former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson challenged President Bush’s embrace of the British notion that Saddam Hussein imported uranium from Niger for nuclear weapons, retaliation by Rove was never in doubt.” That Rove would carefully cover his tracks was also never in doubt.

So what’s the fallout? Not as much as Rove’s opponents would like. Perhaps a few fence-sitters will be swayed by this Machiavellian operation, maybe the mid-terms will be dented, but all in all the nation is so divided that not many people will have their opinions change – if they even remember the scandal come 2006. Blue-state types will see this as another sign of the end of democracy, while red-staters will see this as an unprovoked witch-hunt. Perhaps Rove’s influence within the party will take a hit, but just as likely he will be more widely respected; cross him and he’ll get you, and there’s nothing you can do about it.