This LA Times piece appearing in Friday's edition states that as of this evening Fitzgerald had not notified Rove whether or not he would be indicted. The NYT article assumed this to mean that Rove will not be indicted. However, the truth is that Fitzgerald has not informed Rove one way or the other. There is no possible way for an outside source to know because Fitzgerald simply has not told Rove or anyone else, and no one else in his office leaks. Therefore, any article that makes a definitive claim about Rove's status is inaccurate. Even if Rove is ultimately not indicted, the NYT piece is still inaccurate for the aforementioned reasons.
http://www.latimes.com/...
More below:
http://www.latimes.com/...
Here is a relevant quote from the LA Times piece:
"People close to the investigation said that, as of late Thursday afternoon, Rove had received no notice that he was going to be indicted. Some observers took that as a sign that the longtime Bush strategist might emerge from the investigation without being charged.
But others said that Fitzgerald might be waiting until Friday to alert those being charged to reduce the chances of last-minute leaks about his intentions.
Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer, declined to comment. Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, didn't respond to multiple messages.
A spokesman for Fitzgerald, Randall Samborn, declined comment."