Question: Hasn't Fitz always said he has no plans to indict anyone?

I now think that Rove is off the hook as someone convinced me that Luskin can't be lying or he would be disbarred. However, hasn't Fitz always stated that he has no plans to indict anyone?

asking for indictment.

Fitzgerald asked for indictment of Libby and got it.

I like that. He is doing his job.

it would have played a role in all the TO/anti-TO threads...

especially lying outside of a courtroom or other legal setting.

in fact, telling the truth is far more likely to lead to disbarment than lying.

They have to disbar 90% of their membership.

investigation. Immediately prior to seeking the indictment concerning Libby it would have been false.

At the beginning, before looking over the evidence, saying, "I'm planning on seeking an indictment against Rove" would have been insane. The default state of an honest investigator at the beginning is, "I want to examine the evidence; I may have theories, but I'm not currently convinced enough that anybody can be convicted, or even is guilty." First establish the facts, then proceed to a conclusion.

For him to say 'not anticipating seeking an indictment' this late in the game, when most of the evidence is in and has been examined, means that he probably hasn't found sufficient evidence. Will he? Maybe. Don't count on it.

And the argument was probably that Luskin would not lie about material fact, and Fitzgerald's letter would constitute material fact; lying about things that aren't material fact is merely defense. At least that's the argument I heard.