The only thing you've cited as proof of Novak's "inconsistencies" is a Newsweek article which uses second hand information, or hearsay.

Novak's own words are, apparently, consistent.

Furthermore, let's assume that Novak testified in a certain manner before the Grand Jury. Let us further assume, that thereafter he provided, as you claim, inconsistent versions to the press.

One of the versions he provided to the press would have had to contradict what he told the Grand Jury, correct?


So why wouldn't Fitzgerald use those inconsistent statements as a basis to investigate Novak for lying before the grand jury? As noted above at least one of them should, under your theory, have contradicted his testimony.