Karl Rove may have lied

Senator Frank Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, responded to the president’s statement in an October 10, 2003, interview with the New York Times.

“If the president says, 'I don't know if we're going to find this person,' what kind of a statement is that for the president of the United States to make?” Lautenberg asked. “Would he say that about a bank robbery investigation?”

During this time the White House was facing a deadline on turning over documents, emails and phone logs to Justice Department officials probing whether or not the leak came from the White House. Bush said that the White House could invoke executive privilege and withhold some “sensitive” documents related to the leak case leading many Democrats to believe that the White House had something to hide.

At the same time, the White House first started to lay the groundwork for a defence, specifically related to the role Rove played in the leak and whether he or anyone else in the administration knew Plame was covert CIA operative and intentionally blew her cover in order to undercut Wilson’s credibility.

On October 6, 2003, McClellan, in response to questions about whether Rove was Novak’s source, tried to explain the difference between unauthorised disclosure of classified information and "setting the record straight" about Wilson’s public criticism of the administrations handling of intelligence on Iraq.

“There is a difference between setting the record straight and doing something to punish someone for speaking out,” McClellan said. "There were some statements made (by Wilson) and those statements were not based on facts," McClellan said. "And we pointed out that it was not the vice president's office that sent Mr Wilson to Niger. (CIA Director George) Tenet made it very clear in his statement that it was people in the counter proliferation area that made that decision on their own initiative."

The difference is crucial in that knowingly making an unauthorised leak of classified information is a federal crime. But repeating the leak when it has already been reported may not be considered a serious offence.

Still, when the Justice Department failed to convict Martha Stewart on insider trading charges, prosecutors had enough evidence to convince a jury that the style maven lied to federal investigators and obstructed justice. She wound up with a felony conviction and six months in jail.

Now the evidence shows that Karl Rove and other White House officials lied to federal investigators about what they knew and when they knew it - maybe they too will meet the same fate.