The Washington Post rubbing WH nose in their lies, yet again...

[FormerRepublican]

...can there be enough repeating?

"-- Previous denials by White House spokesman Scott McClellan that Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and presidential political adviser Karl Rove were involved in leaking the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame. Reporters posed the questions during White House briefings.

Oct. 7, 2003

Q. Scott, you have said that you personally went to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliott Abrams to ask them if they were the leakers. Is that what happened? Why did you do that? And can you describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question you asked?

McClellan: Unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., at a time like this there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made. And that's exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals. They are good individuals. They are important members of our White House team. And that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt with that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/17/AR2005071700556.html

It makes the most excellent reading. And I suspect the Washington Post is enjoying this. ;)

[Cha]

1. The wash post has been

a mouthpiece for the wh..what changed(she keeps asking)?

[Bumblebee]

2. This is an AP story, not WP

[rumpel]

3. Federal Conspiracy Statute:

John W. Dean from column Oct 2003

Why the Federal Conspiracy and Fraud Statutes May Apply Here

This elegantly simple law has snared countless people working for, or with, the federal government. Suppose a conspiracy is in progress. Even those who come in later, and who share in the purpose of the conspiracy, can become responsible for all that has gone on before they joined. They need not realize they are breaking the law; they need only have joined the conspiracy.

Most likely, in this instance the conspiracy would be a conspiracy to defraud - for the broad federal fraud statute, too, may apply here. If two federal government employees agree to undertake actions that are not within the scope of their employment, they can be found guilty of defrauding the U.S. by depriving it of the "faithful and honest services of its employee." It is difficult to imagine that President Bush is going to say he hired anyone to call reporters to wreak more havoc on Valerie Plame. Thus, anyone who did so - or helped another to do so - was acting outside the scope of his or her employment, and may be open to a fraud prosecution.

What counts as "fraud" under the statute? Simply put, "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any department of government." (Emphasis added.) If telephoning reporters to further destroy a CIA asset whose identity has been revealed, and whose safety is now in jeopardy, does not fit this description, I would be quite surprised.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20031010.html

[Justice]

4. thank goodness for David Gregory, the reporter who asked

that question in 2003.