I suspect his conversation was on the phone. Recording phone conversations in DC is not legal unless both parties agree to it.
We know that Rove's attorney said Rove told the Grand Jury that "I heard the same thing!" when asked to confirm Plame being Wilson's wife and that she had gotten her husband the job.
I suspect that Novak only told the Grand Jury that Rove did not confirm that Plame was Wilson's wife who got Wilson his job. "I have heard the same thing!" is not a confirmation. So Novak then contacted Harlow who did confirm that Plame was Wilson's wife and that she got her husband the job.
Note that Novak also says his recollection of his conversation with Harlow differs from Harlow's recollection.
If Rove "Remembered" things from their converstation that Novak "Forgot", then that explains the differences.
You can not indict Rove for "Remembering" something that Novak "Forgot."
It is also likely that Harlow "Remembered" things from his conversation that Novak "Forgot."
I think Novak is just saying to both Harlow and Rove... I tried not to "Remember" anything that might have given Fitzmas a reason indict you. If Novak "didn't remember" there can be on purjury indictment for Harlow or Rove.
Excellent analysis, and it makes sense, too! Thanks for decoding it for us.
From an article on the Google News Page:
"Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post spoke with Novak today, and then reported: "Novak said he and Rove had differing recollections of what happened when he asked about Plame." Novak recalls Rove saying, "Oh, you know that, too?" Rove, according to his spokesman Mark Corallo, has said he responded, "I've heard that, too."