Guest:

There's little argument that Rove changed his story considerably (in part after Matt Cooper agreed to talk about his contacts). Rove knew the jig was up, and decided to come clean about hs role in outing Plame. His "excuse"? "Oh, I forgot about that little conversation with Cooper! Silly me, how could I be so forgteful?" And therfe was the matter of that e-mail Rove-Libby (IIRC) e-mail turning up much later. They just mysteriously "found" it.

Keep in mind that Libby did the same thing; their initial approach was to stone-wall, hoping the reporters would (inexplicably) keep their actions secret, but they both changed their tune after Miller and Cooper started talking (and showed that they both had been spreading the news about Plame).

So did Rove "lie" (that is, make a material statement he believed to be false to a grand jury [or FBI agent] under oath)? You have to prove all three elements beyond reasonable doubt to get a perjury conviction, and maybe Fitzgerald thought there wasn't enough there to sustain that. But did Rove lie (that is, make a false statement)? The anser there is undobtedly yes. But that's SOP for this maladministration. Dubya is an obvious liar, and McClellan was lying all the time.

Cheers,