Why did it take two and one half years for Robert Novak to disclose details of his co-operation with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald?In contast to Novak, virtually all of the other journalists who have testified before the federal grand jury in the CIA leak case wrote or talked publicly about their cooperation usually within days of their testimony.
Novak himself writes in his column for tomorrow morning: "Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has informed my attorneys that after two and one half years, his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to me has concluded. That
frees me to reveal my role in the federal inquiry...."
Unlike the other journalists that had testified simply as witnesses, federal investigators working the case had concerns that Novak may have worked with Rove to devise a cover story to protect Rove, as I first reported in May. If Rove had been charged by the grand jury, Novak would have been a crucial witness against Rove. And Novak himself was reportedly under suspicion by the prosecutor. But when the special prosecutor informed Rove that he would not bring charges against him, it was unlikely that Novak would ever be a witness in the CIA leak case. Thus, Fitzgerald informed the columnist that he not have to remain silent any longer.
Here is part of what I wrote about all of this in May:
http://whateveralready.blogspot.com/2006/07/why-did-it-take-two-and-one-half-years.html