But, that's not the end of it. There may be another false statement charge. Rove reportedly also told investigators in October, 2003 that he only disseminated information about Valerie Wilson aftter Novak's column appeared.

Yet, he discussed Wilson and her employment with the CIA with Matthew Cooper on July 11, three days before Novak's column ran. In his July 17, 2003 Time article, Cooper wrote:

And some government officials have noted to TIME in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein's government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore, sometimes referred to as yellow cake, which is used to build nuclear devices.

Cooper later told the grand jury and the world that Karl Rove was one of those officials.

Former State Department Undersecretary Marc Grossman could be a key witness against Rove -- and one of the reasons Fitz and the grand jury don't buy his forgetfulness claim. Grossman reportedly is the State Department official who told the Washington Post (September 28, 2003):

Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.

"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.

While a recantation defense may be available on a perjury charge, it does not apply to a false statements charge. It's the easiest charge for Fitzgerald to prove. Think Martha Stewart. The only defense Luskin has publicly put forth for Rove on these conversations is he forgot.

Even tonight, Bloomberg News is reporting that Karl Rove maintained to the grand jury yesterday that he can't recall his conversation with Cooper. (Although the AP reported in July, 2005 that he told the grand jury he had discussed Plame's work at the CIA with both Cooper and Novak in October, 2004.)

I don't think either Fitzgerald or the grand jury will buy a forgetfulness defense in the end. Karl Rove's best hope seems to be that this is the only charge Fitzgerald brings against him. If Fitz also charges Rove with perjury before the grand jury or obstruction of justice, he's in much more trouble.

The false statements offense carries a maximum five year penalty and each false statement can support a separate charge. Under the sentencing guidelines, however, if these are the only charges against Rove, with a reduction for cooperation against others in the investigation, he could work himself down to a non-prison sentence. But again, that would be up to Fitzgerald.

If there's an Indictment against Rove, I would look to counts 1 and 2 being false statement charges. If there's a last minute plea deal, this will be the count Rove agrees to plead guilty to in a bid to avoid prison.

In subsequent posts, I'll discuss Rove's potential liability for perjury before the grand jury and obstruction of justice.

All of TalkLeft's 400 posts on the Valerie Plame investigation are accessible here. Those on the Scooter Libby indictment are available here.