Rove! Rove! Rove!

The AP is reporting that Rove will testify yet again in the Plamegate case.

Presidential confidant Karl Rove will testify for a fourth time before the federal grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA officer's identity even though prosecutors have warned they can no longer guarantee he will escape indictment, lawyers said Thursday.

More:

The prosecutor did not give Rove similar warnings before Rove's three earlier grand jury appearances.

Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor, said that 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.

The article also quotes Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, as explicitly denying rumors that his client has received a "target letter" warning of a coming indictment.

That rumored target letter, which I mentioned in a previous post has been the talk of the blogosphere all day, especially after RAW Story published the report. RAW Story corrected the original version of the article, saying that Rove had received not a target letter but a request for further questioning.

Joshua Marshall has discussed this "target letter" business with exemplary thoroughness. To summarize his basic points: The law does not mandate a target letter, although a prosecutor is advised to give such a warning. The "target" warning can be oral. And the relevant section of the U.S. Attorneys' Manual reads as follows:

9-11.153 Notification of Targets

When a target is not called to testify pursuant to USAM 9-11.150, and does not request to testify on his or her own motion (see USAM 9-11.152), the prosecutor, in appropriate cases, is encouraged to notify such person a reasonable time before seeking an indictment in order to afford him or her an opportunity to testify before the grand jury, subject to the conditions set forth in USAM 9-11.152. Notification would not be appropriate in routine clear cases or when such action might jeopardize the investigation or prosecution because of the likelihood of flight, destruction or fabrication of evidence, endangerment of other witnesses, undue delay or otherwise would be inconsistent with the ends of justice.

Seems clear enough to me. Rove has testified three (soon to be four) times; any "target" warning would be a mere courtesy at this point. And Fitzgerald need not give a warning shot to anyone else in this case if he fears evidence tampering will result.

And on other fronts...

Is Karl home? A group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics and Government has sponsored an official complaint to the District Attorney of Kerr County. The complaint holds that Karl Rove "violated Texas state law by illegally registering as a voter in Kerr County, despite never residing there."

Apparently, Turdblossom does own a miniscule cottage in that county, which he rents out. His actual residence is an expensive home in D.C.

I doubt that this complaint will do much good. Remember the hotel room Bush the Elder claimed as his "residence" throughout his presidency?

Did Rove select Harriet Miers? That's what the Moonie Times is claiming. Perhaps Rove -- foreseeing a day when his case might reach that august court -- made a deal with Miers. Or perhaps the WT is trying to sabotage the nomination by associating her with the loathed Rove.