Seems to me we've already got the evidence for the same rap on Rove that sent Martha Stewart to the slammer. Here's what we have
from TAP about what Rove told the Feds:
Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column.
Now here's what we have from Rove's own lawyer,
according to Newsweek:
But according to Luskin, Rove's lawyer, Rove spoke to Cooper three or four days before Novak's column appeared. Luskin told NEWSWEEK that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA."
Luskin's focus is on the original crime--admitting that Rove gave out Plame's name, yeah, but denying that Rove ever "knowingly disclosed classified information": if he didn't "know," then according to the statute he's not guilty. But the same attempt at clearing him actually heists him on the same petard that got Martha. If he told the FBI he never said anyting until after Novakula outed Plame, but Cooper's notes show that he disclosed it with Cooper "three or four days before Novak's column appeared," then they've got him on lying to the FBI.
Seems pretty clear-cut to me. I'm hoping the right-whiners will wail that it's not fair, it's not significant, "After all, he 'didn't know' and that clears him of the actual crime the investigation was about so who cares about such a trivial secondary matter"?
Because that was EXACTLY Martha Stewart's situation, wasn't it. She was never found guilty of the insider trading charge, just the one for lying to the FBI (same one they're STILL using to try and pillory poor old Henry Cisneros). And she DID THE TIME, didn't she. So Rove will have to do his, too, or they and the media will have to admit it really is OKIYAR, won't they?