Is Rove a "target" of the investigation now?

[gulliver]

By this time I would have expected Rove's lawyer to contact Fitzgerald to find out whether Rove is now a target of the investigation. The fact that we haven't heard anything makes it seem more and more like Rove will actually be indicted.

Rove's lawyer would have asked if Rove were a target. If the answer was still "no" (after the e-mails were turned over), I think McLellan or Rove's lawyer would have said so.

Lawrence O'Donnell's three questions have not been answered a week later.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/three-questions-for-karl-_3683.html

[Geoff R. Casavant]

1. Good Point!

I had forgotten the message that silence can speak.

[Jersey Devil]

2. You are not informed if you are a "target" unless called to testify

before the GJ.

[gulliver]

3. Rove was called to testify.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,724804,00.html

And Rove's lawyer said he was given assurances by the prosecutor Fitzgerald that Rove was not a target as of about two weeks ago. That was before Cooper's e-mails were turned over and Cooper agreed to testify.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070201043.html

Why wouldn't Rove's lawyer try to get the same assurance he got a couple of weeks ago that Rove was still not a target? That would surely help the White House and poor Scott McLellan not look like they are stone-walling for a criminal. Maybe Rove's lawyer can no longer get the assurance that Rove is not a target. If so, that would make Rove a target and likely to be indicted.

Lawrence O'Donnell pointed this out last week. I'm just noting that the question still has not been answered.