TPM shares Rove's answers on the Siegelman prosecution.  The answers to questions 1 through 10 appeared to be boilerplate incomplete denials. Something lept out:

"I have never communicated . . . about the investigation, indictment, potential prosecution, prosecution, conviction, or sentencing"

Rove's counsel are DoD military analysts, allegedly supporting unlawful propaganda to mobilize the nation for illegal warfare. Political propaganda is in their blood.

Notice what Rove didn't mention in his denial:

A. Pre-investigation decisions or other memos Rove may have documented his views of political strategy;

B. Political memos or briefings which sprung forth from the assumption the opposing candidate (target of the prosecution) would be defeated in the election;

C. Deliberations in the White House related to political agendas;

D. Things he may have discussed with the President related to media relations, DoD military analysts, or other information disseminated for "partisan" goals;

E. Meetings Rove may have attended, but said nothing, satisfied the political agenda was served;

F. Presentations where others Presented Rove's political philosophy on prosecutions for GOP election objectives; or

G. Agreements the President and Rove accepted before 2001 on the "lawfulness" of politically-motivated prosecutions.

Note the following phrase:

"I have never attempted . . . to influence these matters."

Putting aside that "These matters" doesn't address "the other" matters, consider one legal definition of attempt:

"to actually try to commit a crime and have the ability to do so"

In theory, Rove is asserting he didn't "actually try to commit a crime", but could, in his view, permissible engage in "political agendas."  Rove's comment might be legally accurate, but it may not be consistent with his role in political agendas.

Rove can believe his politically-related activities are lawful, but that doesn't answer the question a grand jury or war crimes tribunal would consider:

Was it the natural, foreseeable consequence of Rove's actions -- when he supported the President's policy of retaliatory prosecutions -- that there was an unlawful or corrupt outcome?

The question before the courts is whether Rove's asserted belief is reasonable. An incomplete denial deserves follow-up:

1. What memos did Rove write with the assumption that the political opponent would be defeated during the election?

2. What was the basis for the assumption that the candidate would be defeated?

3. Was there never any point within any conversation -- ever -- that a prosecution might favorably affect an election outcome for the GOP's "permanent majority"?

4. Which meetings did Rove attend where the President's views on political agendas were shared, and someone discussed the likelihood that a candidate would lose?

5. Other than a convenient prosecution, what factors can Rove and others show that would magically change the voters' impression of the opposing candidate?

6. Why were DoJ Staff reporting they had a loyalty to the President above and beyond their Constitutional oath?

7. Why did Rove not expressly deny all pre-investigation deliberations within the White House related to political philosophy, and Republican agendas to win elections?

8. Is it Rove's position that he and the President never

9. What political agendas was Rove aware, or should have been aware the President was supporting by working with DoD analysts, and disseminating information favorable to the Iraq War efforts?

10. Did Rove and then Governor Bush never discuss the political advantage of a prosecution, even before 2001 while Bush was in Texas?

Rove's answers should be compared to the attacks on the GOP offices in the 2004 election:

11. Is it Rove's position that he would never support an attack on the GOP offices to blame the Democrats or unions?

12. Despite the NSA's domestic monitoring capability going back decades, why did the US Attorneys never prosecute anyone who attacked the Republican offices; what happened to the NSA intercepts of those planning the attacks on the GOP offices?

Rove's answers should be considered in light of the Libby perjury evidence:

13. If Rove did nothing wrong, who was Libby protecting?

14. If Rove was never involved with anything questionable, why did he make it a point to say that he convinced a reporter of something when discussing the Valarie Plame issues?