Among the many questions surrounding the investigation into who in the Bush administration leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer is whether President Bush\'s top political adviser told his boss the truth about his connection to the case. Two years ago, the White House denied that Karl Rove played any role, but revelations in the past month have shown that Rove spoke with two journalists about the operative, Valerie Plame. If Rove didn\'t tell Bush the truth, that theoretically could be a legal problem for the presidential aide under the federal false statement statute. Wayne State University law professor Peter Henning said the false statement law covers statements made to all members of the executive branch, including the president acting in his official capacity. In contrast, a typical false statement case involves lying to investigators or writing false information on a form to the government. The difficulties in bringing even a typical false statement case are considerable. Simply misleading someone isn\'t enough to bring a prosecution. \"If the president asks Rove, \'Do we have anything to worry about here?\' and Rove says \'No,\' that would not be a false statement,\" said Henning. \"These two men have known each other a long time, the president is not going to question Rove closely as a law enforcement agent would, and that makes all the difference.\"