Jim VandeHei reports:
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove sought to convince a federal grand jury yesterday that he did not provide false statements in the CIA leak case, testifying for more than three hours before leaving a federal courthouse unsure whether he would be indicted, according to a source close to the presidential aide. In his fifth appearance before the grand jury, Rove spent considerable time arguing that it would have been foolish for him to knowingly mislead investigators about his role in the disclosure of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame to the media, the source said.
So it seems even Rove rejects that not a target canard. While Rove’s latest spin is that it would have been foolish to lie, Digby suggests Rove was preturnaturally confident to believe he could lie. Some legal beagle help us out – is being foolish a defense against a charge of perjury and obstruction of justice?