Also the primary requisite intent for the offense of disclosing the identity of a covert operative is intentionally and knowingly. Specific intent is a higher burden for the government to prove than just "knowingly." In other words, the disclosure must have been intentional and in making the disclosure he had to know he was both identifying a covert agent and that the United States was taking affirmative measures to conceal that agent's intelligence relationship to the U.S.
§ 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent.
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (my emphasis)
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agent as result of having access to classified information.
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identity of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (my emphasis.)
Which leads me back to wondering whether Fitzgerald want's Cooper's testimony to help establish Rove's mental state.
Digby makes a good point here:
I find Luskin's language a little bit interesting. He says Rove never "identified" Valerie Plame to Cooper. What does that mean exactly? Did he not identify her by name? Or did he not identify her as a CIA operative? In other words, did Karl Rove call up Matt Cooper and say, " Joe Wilson's wife is a CIA operative and she got him the job," which technically means that he didn't "identify" her, but he sure put old Matt on the trail. It wouldn't have been hard to find out who Joseph Wilson was married to. Or maybe he meant something else entirely. But the wording is unusual -- just as Clinton's wording "I did not have 'sexual relations'with that woman" was strange. Why didn't just say "sex"? Because he was carefully using a legal definition. When lawyers word things in a careful way like this, there's usually a reason for it.
Without access to the documents Time turned over, it's impossible to know what Fitzgerald wants and important to keep in mind that we're all just guessing.
Update 10:00 pm: I now think that Rove told the grand jury and/or a federal official that he disclosed Valerie Plame's name to Cooper but didn't know she was an undercover operative. Fitzgerald may be insisting on Cooper's testimony to ask him whether Rove ever indicated he knew she worked in an undercover capacity.
Update: It now looks like Rove may have admitted he disclosed that Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but did not mention her name - he maintains he didn't know her name.