More indictment rumors swirling -- this time in D.C.

There are two different sources posting scuttlebutt this afternoon regarding indictments, Karl Rove, and the Plame case.

That's right; blog postings about the fact that there are rumors that there will be indictments. Perhaps, after the last few weeks, it's just too good to be true.

Then again, a man can dream ...

Update: The Washington Post reports that yes, rumors are certainly swirling.

Update II (10/6, a.m.): Think Progress lists the 21 administration officials involved in Leakgate, and details their whereabouts, actions, grand jury appearances, etc.

Update III (10/6, p.m.): NYT ...

Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor, said it was unusual for a witness to be called back to the grand jury four times and that the prosecutor's legally required warning to Rove before this next appearance is ''an ominous sign'' for the presidential adviser.

''It suggest Fitzgerald has learned new information that is tightening the noose,'' Gillers said. ''It shows Fitzgerald now, perhaps after Miller's testimony, suspects Rove may be in some way implicated in the revelation of Plame's identity or that Fitzgerald is investigating various people for obstruction of justice, false statements or perjury. That is the menu of risk for Rove.''

Executive privileges

From the NYT's report on the President's press conference today:

Bush also sent a clear signal that he would resist, on grounds of executive privilege, providing senators documents related to Ms. Miers's work in the White House. At least some Democrats are likely to seek such records, especially since Miers, who has never been a judge, has no "paper trail" of opinions.

"I just can't tell you how important it is for us to guard executive privilege in order for there to be crisp decision-making in the White House," Bush said.

The Constitution does not specifically mention executive privilege, but the Supreme Court has recognized the need for confidentiality between high government officials and their advisers. The court has concluded, however, that executive privilege is not absolute.

How about that; there's no right to 'executive privilege' in the Constitution. Now is that the same thing as 'privacy'?

Sauce for the goose ...