The Novak mystery ... solved?

Somehow I missed the NY Times's latest article on the Valerie Plame affair (hat tip: MyDD) and the mysterious role of douchebag of liberty Robert Novak, who for reasons unknown has remained unscathed as other reporters face jail time, even though it was Novak's column that originally revealed Plame's identity as a CIA operative (see our earlier post here for more background and links).

I mention this to flag an interesting theory as to why Novak has remained so curiously above the fray.  The theory, floated here by a MyDD diarist called JollyBuddah, is that when Novak testified before the grand jury, he did in fact reveal who leaked Plame's name to him -- but he lied about it, and the special prosecutor knows it.  That would explain why the prosecutor has brought so much pressure on the other reporters to name their source: if they do, then the prosecutor can identify and (perhaps) prosecute the real leaker, and he can also prosecute Novak for perjury.  It would also explain why Novak has been so oddly non-supportive of the other two reporters -- who, facing jail time because of what Novak did, have publicly expressed their disappointment that Novak hasn't called for them to be let off the hook (Novak's sensitive comment: "I don't know why they're upset with me.  They ought to worry about themselves.  I worry about myself.").  In fact, the "Novak lied" theory is the only one I've seen on the Novak business that makes any real sense.

UPDATE: I like this commentary on Novak-Plame by a journalism professor.  His basic point: if reporters want the public to take seriously their claims that they need to protect their sources, they need to use those sources in a responsible manner (we advanced a similar view here).  He asks rhetorically: "How is [an independent press] advanced when reporters insist that they are constitutionally entitled to serve as protected instruments of state calumny against private citizens?"