Could an Obstruction of Justice Charge be in Rove's Future?

There's been a lot of speculation recently that Patrick Fitzgerald may be pursuing a perjury charge against Karl Rove. The more I think about it, though, the more I think that if Rove is charged with anything, it will be obstruction of justice. Let me explain.

According to Newsweek (7/17/05):

"Rove did not initially discuss the conversation with
Cooper in his first interview with the FBI, a source
close to Rove, who declined to be identified because
of the ongoing investigation, told NEWSWEEK. But
Rove later testified about it, the source said."

This paragraph is interesting for a number of reasons. First, it's attributed to "a source close to Rove." This source is almost surely Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney. Why would Luskin go out of his way to tell Newsweek this seemingly damaging fact about his client? Keep in mind, this is the same guy who has been playing semantic games with the press since this story broke. One possible explanation: lawyers often like to be the first to reveal damaging facts about their clients, whether it's to a jury or to the public, because it allows them to spin that fact, to frame it in a way that minimizes its damaging impact. So pay attention to Newsweek's (presumably Luskin's) choice of words: Rove "did not initially discuss" his conversation with Cooper.

Now consider this. Other than the Novak column that started this whole mess, Cooper's "War on Wilson" article in Time was the most significant article to mention Plame's name. In it, Cooper writes that:

"[S]ome 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."

The FBI investigators looking into this matter would undoubtedly have been intimately familiar with this paragraph; Cooper's article was one of their primary sources of information on the leak. FBI investigators would not just go into an interview with a top White House staffer like Rove and ask him to tell them anything he thinks might be important. Quite the opposite. They would have a game plan they developed well before the interview and a set of specific questions that they wanted answers to. Chief among these questions would be whether or not Rove was one of the sources cited in the various stories that were written about Plame. I find it difficult to believe that during the course of such an interview, these FBI investigators would have failed to ask Rove whether he was one of the "government officials" cited by Cooper in his "War on Wilson" article. Failing to ask that question would be almost inexcusable incompetence. So if Rove was asked directly whether or not he was one of Cooper's sources, what did he say? Did he affirmatively deny it? Did he say that he talked to Cooper, but only after Novak's story was published? Was a "source close to Rove" trying to pre-emptively spin either of these possibilities when he told Newsweek that Rove "did not initially discuss" his conversation with Cooper?

Of course I could be way off, but if this speculation is anywhere near the truth, it's not hard to understand why prosecutors were so anxious to have Ashcroft recuse himself and have a special prosecutor appointed. If Rove knowingly misled his FBI interviewers, that would be textbook obstruction of justice.

Update: I've received a few emails asking me what the relevant federal obstruction of justice statute is. I believe it's 15 U.S.C. 1505 (specifically, the second paragraph).

Update II: Tom Maguire pushes back a little on my suggestion by noting the absense of any mention of Time magazine in the initial set of subpoenas to the White House.