From Holden:

The Times’ Adam Liptak wrote a rather long, rambling piece on the Plame investigation, focusing primarily on Patrick Fitzgerald’s tactic of compelling testimony from reporters. Liptak covers no new ground, but at the very end of his piece he does touch on one subject I have been thinking about lately:

The real mystery in the investigation, lawyers involved in it say, is what Mr. Novak has done. Mr. Novak’s lawyer, James Hamilton, declined to comment. There are four essential possibilities.

Mr. Novak may not have been subpoenaed, which would be curious. He may have asserted the reporter’s privilege, but there is no reason to think that Judge Hogan would have ruled in his favor.

He may have asserted his rights under the Fifth Amendment. But Mr. Novak faces no real peril under the 1982 law, and Mr. Fitzgerald could in any event require him to testify by offering him immunity. Or Mr. Novak may have testified.

I feel like we would have heard something if the Douchebag of Liberty had been subpeonaed. When Tim Russert, Walter Pincus, Judith Miller, and even Matthew Cooper were subpeonaed it was big news, Novak’s subpeona would carry even more weight.

So, did Novak talk?