Some bloggers have been comparing Martha Stewart's prison sentence with one they hope Bill Frist will serve. But, it looks like Martha Stewart's crime may be much closer to one commited by Bush than by Frist.
Stewart was found guilty on two counts of making false statements, one count of obstruction of justice, and one count of conspiracy. The false statements she made and her obstruction of justice charge come from her conversations with prosecutors that were not under oath.
Bush's White House interview with Fitzgerald was also not under oath and could lead to similar obstruction of justice and false statements charges if today's Daily News article is accurate.
McClellan, when asked about it today, did not challenge anything in the article.
The Daily News states that
"Bush was initially furious with Rove in 2003 when his deputy chief of staff conceded he had talked to the press about the Plame leak."
Greg at The Talent Show argues that if Murray Waas' article about Rove and Bush's 2003 conversations reflects what Fitzgerald had been told, that Rove had kept the conversations secret from Bush, then Bush would be a clear candidate for false statement or obstruction of justice charges.
The question remains, however: What did Bush tell Fitzgerald? If it's anything like what McClellan hinted at in his June 24, 2004 press briefing, Bush may be in big trouble:
He was pleased to do his part to help the investigation move forward. No one wants to get to the bottom of this matter more than the President of the United States, and he has said on more than one occasion that if anyone -- inside or outside the government -- has information that can help the investigators get to the bottom of this, they should provide that information to the officials in charge. (White House)
(Cross posted at The Next Left)