I had originally put this as a comment, but I'm curious enough about it this morning that I thought I would turn it into a blog post.  To wit:

Rove's statements to Lamar Smith are meaningless.  Here is why.

The statute that makes it illegal to lie to Congress (even when not under oath), 18 USC 1001(a), says (in material part)

Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

What (a) giveth, (c)(2) taketh away:

With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

That's the rub. Lamar Smith is not the chairman of the judiciary committee. He has no authority to compel anyone to answer anything. Furthermore, the D.C. Circuit's construction of "jurisdiction" is a narrow one. They tossed out an indictment of a member allegedly lying to the House Clerk under 1001. United States v. Oakar, 324 U.S. App. D.C. 104 (1997). Thus, suppose Lamar sends Rove a letter, and Rove responds with a pack of lies. No jurisdiciton, no foul. Smith is not acting with the authority of the committee and therefore no liability arises from Rove's answers to his questions.

I freely admit that I could be wrong about this, but I wonder whether anyone has seen the document that went -out- to Karl and his lawyer?