I am beginning to believe the hypothesis that Fitzgerald is now looking into whether Rove told him the truth about who he spoke to and when.
The fact that Novak told Rove first isn't as important to obstruction charges as the fact that Rove spoke to him, if Rove testified that he did not speak to Novak, or something along those lines.
Next we could hear about Martha Stewart being jailed and how this is the same thing, or something to that effect.
That's what I get from this snippet, having already wholly discredited in my mind the notion that Rove did anything wrong while communicating with journalists.
I doubt that is what Fitzgerald is looking at, but I don't doubt that is the story the New York Times is trying to concoct and sell to the public. This is what is so terrible about newspapers printing leaks from a grand jury. The honorable people won't talk, and the dishonorable people can say anything they want because they know the honorable people won't talk, even to refute the lies of others.