From the article:
Conyers and Slaughter note in their letter that in an October 2003 interview with Wilson, Guckert referenced a memo written by U.S. intelligence officials indicating the operative suggested Wilson could investigate reports that Iraq had sought uranium.
"In and of itself, this indicates that Mr. Guckert had access to classified information," the two lawmakers wrote. And "it appears now that Mr. Guckert memorialized his experiences at the White House."
Actually "in and of itself", it shows he read the October 17 Wall Street Journal where they described the memo. (Gannon's interview with Wilson was the next week and published on October 28.)
LOL
"Actually "in and of itself", it shows he read the October 17 Wall Street Journal where they described the memo. (Gannon's interview with Wilson was the next week and published on October 28.)"
Anyone following this case objectively knew about that WSJ article. I noticed the lefty-flavored chat always closed their eyes to articles like the WSJ one that debilitated Wilson's crazier claims about his wife having no involvement. Kind of like how they conveniently forgot the Bipartisan Senate Intel. Report to keep their discourse about Plamegate pure to their hopes.
Now the leak of the memo to the WSJ, or description of the memo, may be criminal, is interesting, and must have come from the "administration." I imagine the disinterest in that part of the investigation from the left arises because if confronted the content of the memo must be confronted to - that their hero Wilson is loopy, or hiding something.
Gannon talked about the memo, I guess, no different than any journalist pretends they "know" something that appeared in a major media outlet.
FYI, from the unobjective right the slant is often a conclusion that no crime could have been commited with the Plame leak. Let's see what the investigators say.
BTW, in Gannon's interview with Wilson (it was pretty good) one could believe he might had seen the memo with his firm statement about it. So I can see why he might be on an investigation list.
But on closer examination, and in comparison to the WSJ article, he was citing from the WSJ.