The identity of Mr. Novak's original source for the column that triggered the entire case is still unknown, at least to the public. Mr. Novak has testified to the grand jury since Mr. Rove's last appearance in October 2005.

Still, he did say, "If I had gone before a grand jury and taken the Fifth Amendment, Mr. Fitzgerald would have that on the street in about two minutes." "The question is, does Mr. Fitzgerald know who the source was?" Novak asked. "Of course. He's known for years who the first source is. If he knows the source, why didn't he indict him? Because no crime was committed." Novak said he doesn't believe his source violated laws forbidding the disclosure of a CIA agent's identity.

Fitzgerald is nearly leak-proof. So how can Novak claim Fitzgerald would have leaked this news? But someone has gotten some details of Novak's testimony out to Waas. (Probably not Fitzgerald, but probably the FBI investigators working in Fall 2003.) The only way Novak can make such a complaint is if Waas' early reporting on Novak is accurate. Which would suggest his current reporting may also rely on Novak testimony. The Novak claim that Bush knew his source has always been the biggest remaining piece of evidence against Armitage as Novak's source. There's just no reason why Armitage would have told Bush of the fact. But some convoluted plot like this one might explain both the Armitage allegations, Waas' latest, and Novak's bloviating from December.