Well, let's see.
Novak testified secretly so that no one in the Press knew about it.
He didn't tell his sources either so that they would have no chance to protect themselves against the coming storm.
Fitzgerald's office had no leakers because they were all intensely loyal to George Bush and didn't want to do anything to jeopardize his election (while, of course, continuing to maintain their impartiality).
And everyone knew that the whole thing was of minor importance and no one in the press would pick it up even if they did reveal it.
Perfectly rational. Right?
Exactly. You mock the notion that Fitzgerald's grand jury has been leakproof, but it has. That's what's driving the NY Times nuts. The only reason we know about the other reporters is because of court rulings.
Several articles have referenced that the grand jury is tighter than a drum and there have been zero leaks. Russert made a statement as to what he testified to, but that is a statement issued to the public, not to be confused with a leak. Why you tie this grand jury to the election goes to your closed mind on this subject.
So, yes, I posit that Novak has indeed testified secretly. Your bias prohibits you from accepting that his sources would also keep mum and your thinking a storm would ensue also goes to your bias that they committed a crime or some such.
I have no idea what you think is of minor importance. I think, as I've told you before, this story is huge. We just disagree in what way.