[mewzilla]

Vis-a-vis Novak, FWIW, I'd heard differently. They ought to subpoena Novak just to get him on the reocrd. I realise he can get away with not naming his source, but he can't get away with not answering what he knew about outing her.

[Shermy]

I thought the lame way he tried to deflect fault from himself made his story about why he was told more plausible - ie, his lie was not about his sources, but about his conduct afterward.

He said the first person to tell him was done casually duing a long discussion...indicating perhaps it was a friend of his...who might have been currying favor, but assumed he wouldn't tell.

Then another "senior admin. official" confirmed it with a "oh you know about that" comment.

Then a third confirmed, the CIA official.

The "leak" might have been more negligent than purposeful. But maybe not.

Do you have a link to that BBC article???