"There is simply no plausible construction of the known evidence that leaves out Novak either providing a proffer through his lawyer of what he would say if he testified or having testified directly"

This quote by Michael Isikoff suggests that there is no other way to interpret the existing proof without involving Robert Novak in some way. This could indicate that Novak either supplied a declaration through his attorney of what he would say if he affirmed, or that he in fact affirmed directly. This indicates that Novak is an important part of the evidence which his participation is needed in order to understand the full image. It also recommends that Novak has some knowledge or info that pertains to the case, which his statement is necessary in order to get a much better understanding of the circumstance. This quote highlights the significance of Novak's participation in the case and the need to consider his statement in order to get a better understanding of the evidence.