He didn't release details. He lied to investigators to deflect their attention from the real leaker. Sort of like how Martha Stewart was convicted of making false statements to Federal agents.

Is that the conventional wisdom? I thought the consensus was that he probably was the source for David Sanger's book, but that the federal government didn't want the exposure of litigating the case, so it was resolved in the end by him agreeing to plead guilty to a lesser offense of, roughly, "lying under oath about not being the leaker", without being actually charged with the leak itself.