This is from the DrudgeReport:
But Rove did not leak the name of the CIA op Plame, Rove's lawyer said again Saturday night.
Robert Luskin said Rove never identified Plame to Cooper in those conversations.
"Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn't disclose Valerie Plame's identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else,'' Luskin said to the WASHINGTON POST. Luskin said the question remains unanswered: ``Who outed this woman? ... It wasn't Karl.''
Again if you actually knew what you are speaking about you would know this.
Cooper had called Rove about Wilson's claim that the White House was lying about Saddam having tried to buy yellow cake from Africa. Rove told Cooper that Wilson's report did indeed confirm Saddam had tried to by yellow cake (which is true) but that also there were other sources that showed the same thing (which is also true).
When asked why Wilson was sent in the first place Karl Rove stated that his wife had lobbied for and won his appointment (which coincidently is against the law).
That is what transpired and Karl Rove neither lied or broke the law.
Suppose, for instance, Luskin said that "Rove never revealed the name of CIA covert operative Valerie Plame to Cooper." That could be technically true, even if he Rove did talk to Cooper about Joe Wilson's wife. If Plame is not a CIA covert operative, it is true. If Rove revealed she was Wilson's wife, that does not mean he revealed her name. If Cooper asked him about Plame, and he did not reveal that she was a covert CIA operative, the statement is still true.
Like it or not, lawyers talk this way, particularly in prepared statements. So paraphrasing them is useless at best, and probably deceptive as well.