INDCJournal: The Main Assertion in Gannonquiddick

« Eason Jordan Resigns (UPDATED) | Main | Quick Links »

February 12, 2005

The Main Assertion in Gannonquiddick

Posted by Bill

... is thin and weak, given current evidence. The Kossacks, Marshall, et al, are getting riled up over the possibility that Gannon had special, illegal access to the secret Valerie Plame memo. The only problem is, as of present information, it seems his first mention of the memo's contents took place after the Wall Street Journal wrote about its details. As I mentioned in my previous analysis:

... Gannon was "aware" of the report in October. The report was leaked and written about by Bob Novak in July. By the time Gannon interviewed Wilson in October [this is where he first referred to the memo's contents], the Wall Street Journal had written an overview of the memo earlier in the month - it was common knowledge. I was "aware of the INR report" as well.

JustOneMinute is on the same page, also taking apart the Kos speculation, based on the details in the Kos timeline:

Read the Journal story, and the Gannon question, and you can almost hear his copy of the Journal rustling. Do I need to highlight the matching phrases?
Now, for a bit of bonus hilarity, Intrepid Reporter Jeff Gannon also asked Amb. Wilson about a Nick Kristof column written on Oct. 11; this appears in the Kos timeline at Nov. 3, 2003.

So, the Alternative Explanation - Jeff Gannon reads the papers!

JustOneMinute also shares my analysis that Gannon's cryptic later statements about protecting sources may stem from dramatic license or the fact that he did receive the memo - late, from secondary sources other than the White House, and along with other members of the Washington and NY press corps - because Gannon never used any inside information before it was available in other large media outlets:

Well, in other forums Gannon has said other things. And why does he not just admit that he got his news from the Journal? Well, why should he admit it - the Special Counsel is ignoring him (we wonder why...), and pretending to be a Bold Reporter who is Bravely Protecting Sources may have a certain glam appeal. (I would fold up like a cheap suitcase in front of the Grand Jury myself, but I would never admit it that later. Well, unless you asked.)
Or maybe Gannon, the Journal, and others got this memo - that would be consistent with the WaPo account. Two WSJ reporters (Gigot and Hitt) were also subpoenaed - what is their status?

My guess - much less here than even the newer, calmer Kos Crew supposes. Maybe Gannon got the memo when some other folks did; I'll bet he reads the news. Time will tell.

It's amusing that the details in Kos's own ostensibly damning timeline go a long way towards actually casting doubt on their conclusions. Read the rest of Just One Minute's summation. I think that we're both leaving ourselves wiggle room in case some new information comes to light, but as of now, there's not much there there. The investigators trying to prove illegal receipt of classified documents will have to prove that he received the actual CIA memo or demonstrate that he displayed knowledge of the memo's contents before the information entered the public domain through other media outlets. Thus far, they haven't come close to doing this.

And the problem with stories like this is that the characterization that "Gannon may have had improper access to CIA documents based on speculation without objective evidence" winds up transmogrifying into the ideological boilerplate of "Jeff Gannon was leaked CIA documents by the White House. And he was a plant."

As evidenced by Congressional Democrats' and The NY Times' face value reliance on the flawed speculation at Daily Kos ...

(JustOneMinute link via BA)

UPDATE: According to Jeff Gannon's interview with Editor and Publisher, he was never subpoenaed and has never testified before a grand jury about the documents ...

Posted by Bill at February 12, 2005 01:53 PM | TrackBack (5)

Comments

I have been following the Gannon thing on lefty blogs to some degree and I'm amazed that they are so worked up about what essentially amounts to almost nothing.

For example, the entire "Gannon was a Bush shill" argument is ridiculous, even if it's true. The simple fact is that there's a LOT of far left news outlets with press passes. Gannon was the lone conservative. If links to activism becomes an issue with press passes, it's going to blow back much harder on the left than the right.

I get the feeling the left is desperate for their own "Dan Rather". The problem is the right doesn't have anyone as famous as Dan Rather to take down. So they go for Gannon, who is practically unknown even to the right. Bizarre.

Posted by: Presstopia at February 12, 2005 02:58 PM

Gannon was interviewed today in E&P and says that he was NOT subpeonaed in the Plame investigation, although he was interviewed by a couple of FBI agents. He says he also submitted requests for the daily passes via email and included both his "work" name and his real name, and that the passes did not have a name on them.

At the end of the day, about what they've got is that he registered a couple of pornographic website names.

Posted by: Pat Curley at February 12, 2005 04:03 PM

Tom Maguire has lots of good stuff. Just keep scrolling.

Posted by: Jeff G at February 12, 2005 10:17 PM

I personally think its a prudent business move to register as many pornographic domain names as possible, although I haven't made a dime from 'hothooters.com'

Now that he has some real name recognition, if there's any justice, maybe Gannon will get a good job.

Posted by: ProfShade at February 13, 2005 03:38 PM

per presstopias post,
does anybody know the names of some of the obvious, partisan left news services/orgs that have WH or Hill access....

am working on a piece about activism and te gannon issue..

thanks
rod boyd

Posted by: rod at February 14, 2005 11:02 AM

Rod,

For a start try SeeBS, then go on to NBC, ABC, CNN, AP, and Rueters.

Posted by: Loren at February 14, 2005 11:47 AM