Obviously, nothing of importance, given that:
1. Rove has signed a waiver clearing reporters to testify regarding any discussions they might have had with him.
2. Time and the New York Times wouldn't have wasted a split-second incriminating Rove, were he the source.
All in all, this was a particularly pathetic attempt at insinuating Rove was responsible. When the Time notes become public, Isikoff and Newsweek know damn good and well Rove's involvement will be nil.
These lawyers know nothing unless they are lawyers for the other Time reporters that shared credit with Cooper on the two articles.
The key is whether the talk came before or after Novak's article. We know Libby "told" some reporters about Plame before Novak's article. However, so far we know that he knew because other reporters told him.
As for Rove, I doubt it, because if he said the name "Plame" before the Novak article, this would be clearly stated. The subpena for Cooper specifies the information sought is that which arose before the Novak article. Cooper may have contacted Rove afterward-and other people too.
Wilson himself conceded there may be no wrongdoing before the Novak article, but said investigation should be about the attacks on him afterwards. Expect the Dem/MSM spin to go that way, ignoring way Plame's name was mentioned earlier.