There's a big ol' "MAY" in the middle of the article. It's made up!
Yep. Remember, it was the Times that had a front page story on how US troops were hopelessly bogged down in the sands of Iraq two days before Baghdad fell. They don't have a clue. A lawyer talking to a journalist without attribution. Not my idea of solid information.
This sentence is highly suspicious and leads me to doubt the credibility of this entire article. The word "may" makes no sense in this context. A prosecutor would never advise anyone that he/she MAY be the target of an investigation. Either a person is a target or is not a target.
The quoted sentence is a false statement, unless it's referring to advice from Rove or Libby's lawyers to their clients. Strangely, this article doesn't say who advised Rove and Libby that the may be in legal jeopardy. The author should have known who advised them if they've actually been advised by someone and that information was actually leaked to the author. So that sentence looks like it's just a rumor floating around with little substance. A substantial news story should say who gave this advice to Rove and Libby.