well, gannon would be a great fall guy. Unless he decides to spill some beans.
Posted by T2 at October 8, 2005 12:49 PMI think Wilson could probably remember if he tried hard enough.
Posted by harold at October 8, 2005 07:07 PMI think Wilson could probably remember if he tried hard enough.
What?!
Posted by at October 8, 2005 11:38 PMKeep Hope Alive!
Just remember the storyline: Gannon is a lying, self-promoting blowhard, except when he creates a criminal liability for himself by hinting that he is a White Hoise insider with special access to classified documents - then his word is golden.
Posted by Tom Maguire at October 9, 2005 05:31 AMeriposte,
I am having trouble remembering but when the WSJ published the story about the INR memo how is it that they learned about it? Had they seen it or had it already been discussed elsewhere in the media? Had it already been declassified by the time the story went forth? I totally drawing a blank on that piece of the story- (involving the WSJ obtaining information about and reporting on the INR memo)?
Thanks.
Posted by emal at October 9, 2005 07:43 AMTom,
I'm not sure what to make of your comments, but I could care less whether Gannon is indicted by Fitzgerald or not. He is a two-bit player in this game and I am more interested in finding out how he found out about the INR memo - not to see him indicted.
Posted by eriposte at October 9, 2005 08:28 AMTwo quick points:
1) Perhaps Mr. Wilson can ask his administrative assistant, or review his phone records or other materials for information on when the interview took place. Regardless of the Gannon/Guckert, by his own admission, had the information well in advance of the WSJ article.
2) There is NO WAY that Gannon/Guckert formulated that question on his own. He doesn't speak or write like that, and doesn't use the English language like that. That question was fed to him by someone else. And who that was is also a good question.
Posted by spinnaker at October 9, 2005 08:41 AMEmal,
Newspapers get access to classified materials the old fashioned way. Leaks. The WSJ obviously got it that way through one of their administration sources/contacts. The memo itself was not declassified at the time.
The question really is this. How did Gannon get access to the document or at least become aware of its existence and content, and why has he spun so many tales about this rather than come clean.
If he wants to maintain his fictional story that somehow he was a "journalist", he can continue to do so, but that doesn't give him the right to deceive the public on a national security issue about his so-called "reporting" and "sources".
Posted by eriposte at October 9, 2005 08:42 AMeriposte,
Thanks for the response.
I understand the interest in "fake" reporter Guckert/Gannon discrepancy in his story on this matter. I guess I am just trying to remember just how many other actual reporters had information about this story and the timelines. Many people here with some information on this story... The WSJ reporter, Pincus, Matthews, Russert, Cooper,Novak, Mrs. Greenspan....not just Judy and Cooper or fake reporter Jimmy/Jeff. Lot's of potential witnesses that might (already) appear(ed) before a Grand Jury with some important detail or piece of information.
Also have you been over to Tom's place lately...he comes here and mocks people for just pointing out and expressing interest in the changing story of flunky reporter and known prostitute Guckert. Yet over on his blog he and many of commenters seemingly think that it is likely Wilson will be indicted. Go figure. Look in the partisan mirror Tom.
I was given no special information by the White House
It all depends on the meaning of the word, "special" . . .
Posted by Michael Scott at October 9, 2005 10:12 AMit is still chilling to read a fake journalist hack like jimmy-jeff toss around classified info like he did in that question...
Posted by travy at October 9, 2005 10:20 AMit is still chilling to read a fake journalist hack like jimmy-jeff toss around classified info like he did in that question...
=========================
Exactly. Keep this story alive. Thanks!
Posted by R at October 9, 2005 10:24 AM"I was given no special information by the White House"
--No. The White House (Rove or Fleischer) gave the memo to someone high up at Talon (the owner/publisher) who gave it to its White House reporter, JimmyJeff.
Posted by mxh at October 9, 2005 11:00 AMThe problem is that maybe no documents changed hands. I think that memo was stenciled across Rove's fat, pasty ass, and Bulldog read it while plowing him. So maybe they'll get off on a technicality.
The testimony of the ass-stenciler is key.
Posted by BlackBetty at October 9, 2005 12:06 PMAs I reported on February 22nd (and re-reported today), there is no question that Jeff Gannon - serial plagiarist that he is - plagiarized that question completely from the Wall Street Journal.
Posted by Ron Brynaert at October 9, 2005 12:19 PMthanks for the update, e!
Posted by Ron Brynaert at October 9, 2005 01:07 PMThis just keeps getting better and better (or worse and worse, depending on your perspective). For a more fanciful, hopeful, wishful perspective: http://www.hairytruth.blogspot.com.
Posted by truth4achange at October 9, 2005 03:21 PMJoe Wilson has tried to narrow the interview date down and can't recollect and his calendar doesn't have it. He told us at ePluribus that he cant nail it down tot eh date, but Phillip Curtis has the timing about as narrow as JW could get it. It wasn't in September as GG claims...we know that.
Posted by NYBri at October 9, 2005 03:23 PMThe bottom line is it would only be a big plus if Gannon was dragged back into this. I don't think any of us were satisfied with the minimal press GG got the first time. Especially when compared to Lewinsky/Clinton.
Posted by mondo at October 9, 2005 10:09 PMFor Gannon to have plagiarized from the WSJ would have required him to have read it carefully. Highly unlikely.
Posted by harold at October 10, 2005 07:20 PMCome now. Why shouldn't Guckert/Gannon get to be the 'fall guy'. It is after all why you keep worthless people like that around. How could we rune this contry without karl rove? Besids Guckert/Gannon might find parts of prison life enjoyable.
Posted by Andrew Wanielista at October 11, 2005 01:37 AMOn the question of when Gannon interviewed Wilson, here is a data point that folks may have missed. From Part 3:
TN: Nicholas Kristoff wrote in the New York Times recently that the CIA believes that Aldrich Ames may have betrayed your wife to the Russians prior to his arrest in 1994. That would make her not an undercover operative for the CIA in effect.
Wilson: I don't know where Kristoff got that. I think that there is a fair amount of material in the public record to suggest that there is a lot of concern that Mr. Ames betrayed a number of American operatives during his spying.
That was an Oct 11 2003 column by Kristof.
Tom,
I'm not sure what to make of your comments...
A combination of union-mandated snark, and a reminder that Gannon is not particularly credible.
Posted by Tom Maguire at October 11, 2005 08:24 AM