The Times is trying to leave the impression that Rove is still in "trouble", but their own story belies that implication. It's pure political spin. The Rove angle in this story is OVER.
And am I to conclude that Rove's crime was confirming what Novak had already heard? That's silly.
There was no "crime." Rove didn't confirm or leak ANYTHING; the Times' own story says he didn't. He only told Novak what he heard from other journalists - pure hearsay, nothing more. Rove didn't say it was true or false, just that he had heard it.
Thank you, Sir. You simply confirmed what I was pretty sure I was reading: Rove is free and clear. I just couldn't figure out why the copy essentially said that Rove was free and clear, but the authors continued to say that he wasn't. You'd thing I'd be immune to NYT jujitsu after all these years!