Critics of the Bush administration are urging a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, to press on with the CIA leak investigation, despite his decision not to seek a criminal indictment of President Bush’s top political aide, Karl Rove.

It also emerged that Mr. Rove may not yet be out of the woods over the Plame affair, as he could before long be the target of a civil suit.

Mr. Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, announced yesterday that he was advised Monday by Mr. Fitzgerald that the prosecutor “does not anticipate seeking charges” against the veteran Bush adviser in connection with the disclosure to the press of the identity of a CIA employee who did undercover work, Valerie Plame.

“We believe that the special counsel’s decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove’s conduct,” Mr. Luskin said in a statement.

Ms. Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson IV, who has alleged that his wife was exposed by White House officials in an act of political retaliation for his criticism of the Bush administration, hinted that he is considering filing a civil lawsuit against Mr. Rove and other officials.

“While it appears that Mr. Rove will not be called to answer in criminal court for his participation in the wrongful disclosure of Valerie Wilson’s classified employment status at the CIA in retaliation against Joe Wilson for questioning the rationale for war in Iraq, that obviously does not end the matter,” a lawyer for Mr. Wilson, Christopher Wolf, said in a statement. “The day may still come when Mr. Rove and others are called to account in a court of law for their attacks on the Wilsons.”

A former State Department and CIA official who was a member of Ms. Plame’s training class at the CIA, Larry Johnson, said Mr. Fitzgerald’s decision not to indict Mr. Rove signaled that the political aide had fingered Vice President Cheney as the one who ordered officials to leak Ms. Plame’s name to reporters.

“It’s suggests strongly that Karl is cooperating, that he’s been giving information up, apparently,” Mr. Johnson told The New York Sun. “What kind of deal did he cut with Fitzgerald?”

Mr. Johnson said information from Mr. Rove helped prosecutors discover Mr. Cheney’s annotations on a 2003 New York Times op-ed article Mr. Wilson wrote disputing President Bush’s public claim that Iraq sought nuclear materials in Africa.The essay detailed Mr. Wilson’s CIA-backed trip to Niger in 2002 and his conclusion that Saddam Hussein had not sought to purchase uranium there.

A copy of the article Mr. Fitzgerald included in a public court filing last month contains various handwritten notes said to be from Mr. Cheney, including, “Did his wife send him on a junket?”

“When push comes to shove, Karl is saving himself and saving the president, as opposed to Vice President Cheney,” Mr. Johnson said yesterday. “I think Karl has made a choice.”

In an interview yesterday, Mr. Luskin dismissed the notion that Mr. Rove cut a deal with prosecutors to save himself. “Absolutely not,” the attorney said. “There is no deal whatsoever. The subject has never even been discussed.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Cheney, Lea Anne McBride, referred questions about the matter to Mr. Fitzgerald’s office. A spokesman there, Randall Samborn, declined to comment.

The investigation of Mr. Rove centered on his failure to disclose to Mr. Fitzgerald and a grand jury a July 11, 2003, conversation with a Time magazine reporter, Matthew Cooper, in which the White House aide allegedly said that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and arranged her husband’s trip to Africa. According to Mr. Luskin, Mr. Rove simply forgot about the conversation, which prosecutors learned of after obtaining an e-mail the political aide sent to another White House official.

No one has been charged for the leak itself, but a former chief of staff to Mr. Cheney, Lewis Libby, was indicted on charges he lied to investigators about his discussions with reporters. He has pleaded not guilty and is set to go to trial in January.

One Democratic lawmaker who has been pressing for tough action on the leak, Senator Schumer, said he had “every confidence” in the decision about Mr.Rove, but wanted Mr. Fitzgerald to issue a report detailing how the disclosure took place and who was responsible. “We still need to make sure that anyone who did that is given the appropriate punishment,” the senator said.

At a press conference last year, Mr. Fitzgerald said that, unlike independent counsels appointed under a now-expired statute, he could not make his findings public.

“I do not have the authority to write a report, and, frankly, I don’t think I should have that authority,” Mr. Fitzgerald said. “I think we should conduct this like any other criminal investigation: charge someone or be quiet.”

Mr.Samborn also declined to say yesterday whether the decision not to charge Mr. Rove means that the investigation is over. The question is a critical one because a variety of figures caught up in the probe, including the columnist who first published Ms. Plame’s name and CIA affiliation, Robert Novak, have promised to discuss their roles publicly once Mr. Fitzgerald gives the all clear.

Mr. Novak’s attorney, James Hamilton, declined to comment yesterday.

A former deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, refused yesterday to confirm rumors that he disclosed Ms. Plame’s identity to Mr. Novak and another journalist, Bob Woodward of the Washington Post. “I’ll be glad to talk about these matters when Mr. Fitzgerald wraps things up,” the former State Department official said during an appearance on the “Charlie Rose Show” on PBS.”I’m not worrying about my situation. I don’t even have an attorney and haven’t had an attorney.”

Asked if he believes Ms. Plame’s identity was disclosed to damage her or her husband, Mr. Armitage replied, “No, I don’t.”

On many liberal Web sites, where Mr. Rove’s indictment has been eagerly anticipated and sometimes erroneously reported as a fact, a tone of despair and disbelief prevailed yesterday.

“Fitzmas has been canceled,” a user calling himself “Brians3” wrote yesterday on a blog hosting extensive discussion of the Plame case, Firedoglake.com.