There was a time when Conrad Burns and Jack Abramoff were closest of associates. Abramoff spoke of their very tight relationship in a Vanity Fair interview earlier this year.  He said their respective staffs "were as close as they could be." Yet, these days, Conrad Burns DOES NOT want to talk about Jack Abramoff. The Senator made that clear at a recent barbecue in Great Fall, Montana.

When a reporter put the Abramoff question to Burns at Sunday's barbecue, the senator barked back: "Old news." Burns said that he's not a "target" in the Justice Department's ongoing Abramoff probe. But when I asked him whether he falls into the category of potential "targets" federal prosecutors call "subjects," Burns said, "I'm not a target." I asked him again if he's a "subject." "I'm not a target," he said again.

Burns spokesman Jason Klindt confirmed later that the Justice Department has told Burns' criminal defense lawyer that he's not a target. But when I asked Klindt whether Burns is a "subject" -- described in the U.S. Attorney's Manual as "a person whose conduct is within the scope" of a criminal investigation -- he said he wouldn't go beyond what he had just told me.

Burns and his staff are adamant that the Senator is not a "target" of the Justice Department. They won't say if he is a "subject." Does it matter? Not according to noted Attorney Stanley Brand who has vast experience dealing with corruption cases:

Brand said that distinctions in a federal criminal manual between a "target," someone the Justice Department has decided to seek charges against, and a "subject," someone under investigation who could be upgraded to a target, are largely meaningless in a practical sense.

"You can't take these distinctions to the bank, because the Justice Department can change your status whenever it wants to," Brand said. "To me, it is academic. Burns is under investigation."

Burns might not be a "target' but he was named one of the most corrupt members of Congress in "Beyond DeLay."