ROVE GUILTY, FACTS AS THEY BECOME AVAILABLE

The Washington Post acknowledges in an editorial that not nearly enough is known about Karl Rove's involvement in the Plame affair to judge that he acted improperly or illegally:

But much is still unknown, and Democratic demands that Mr. Rove be fired immediately seem premature given the murky state of the evidence.

The editorial then proceeds to make a circumstantial case for Rove's guilt, concluding:

Whether Mr. Rove or others behaved in a way that amounted to criminal, malicious or even merely sleazy behavior will turn on what they knew about Ms. Plame's employment. Were they aware she was a covert agent? Did they recklessly fail to consider that before revealing her involvement? How they learned about Ms. Plame also will matter: Did the information come from government sources or outside parties?

It may be that Mr. Rove, or someone else, will turn out to be guilty of deliberately leaking Ms. Plame's identity, knowing that it would blow her cover. Or officials may have conspired to cover up a leak or lied about it under oath. For now, however, it remains to be established that such misconduct occurred.

The "or even merely sleazy" bit is a classic.