I guess I was just first trying to establish the separation between the issue of comments made, or not made, in the lock-up, and the nature of them, and the link to the report. You started off in your question about how this relates to how something was classified in the Washington embassy. I think there are two elements to it. First is the issue of comments made in the lock-up, alleged comments by Mr. Brodie. We've now established through the timeline, which I think was a very important finding by the investigators, that in fact he had not seen the report on the day he was in the lock-up, and indeed, didn't see a copy of the report until two days later. Therefore, there's no evidence that he disclosed any classified information, because he actually didn't have the report at that time.
For Mr. Wilson, the investigators interviewed a great number of people to look at what he did or didn't say. Their views--and I can turn to them--were that there's no evidence the investigators could find that Mr. Wilson revealed any information tied to the diplomatic report or to any U.S. presidential candidate's position with respect to NAFTA, although his comments to reporters likely helped lead the reporters to the Senator Obama campaign. And there's no evidence from the investigators that Ambassador Wilson disclosed any classified information.
That issue we were talking about vis-à-vis the document is that when you send a document with no classification to a large number of addressees, that actually raises the risk of either unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure.