Which was, as far as the Post brass was concerned, a violation of an ethical rule against expressing an opinion in private e-mails. "Weigel’s e-mails showed strikingly poor judgment and revealed a bias," Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander wrote explaining the whole thing. (A few days ago, Slate's Tom Scocca, a former editor at Washington City Paper, deconstructed the whole mess better than anyone else, concluding: "Still, there was nothing in this episode that an editor with guts and integrity couldn't have weathered in 72 hours. Maybe someday Weigel will be lucky enough to work for one.")

But the Post's editors aren't totally against personal e-mails. In fact, they seem to like when their reporters suck up to sources via e-mail—even if that means telling their sources that they are praying for them.

On January 11, 2006, the Post broke a big local story: Councilmember Marion Barry had tested positive for cocaine use. Two days later, WaPo Metro reporter Hamil Harris e-mailed Barry's chief of staff Linda Greene. Here's what he wrote, according to records City Paper obtained via the Freedom of Information Act not long afterwards:

"Tell Marion

I am praying for him and you

These are trying times but God has not changed"

And Greene's response:

"Amen, it’s good to hear from you.…"

Harris is a veteran journalist, and one of the sweetest guys ever to report out  a Wilson Building press conference or a tragic crime scene. But if what he wrote was OK, why shouldn't Weigel be allowed to privately mock his subjects to his friends? The reason is simple: In journalism, sucking up to sources is considered just part of the job. Thinking critical thoughts about them, though, seems to be verboten.

In my item (linked above, please read it!), I quote from two OAG lawyers' e-mails to the fire department. The two attorneys call out the department for their potentially damaging stonewalling on the discovery, and question whether fire investigators followed basic national standards when they worked the Georgetown library case.

In my calls to the OAG prior to publishing the piece (linked above, please read it!), I got nowhere. Nothing much beyond no comment, it's pending litigation, the usual.

A few hours after my item ran (linked above, please read it!), OAG's Kimberly Matthews called to say she really, really wanted to see those e-mails. Could I please send them to her?

I wondered aloud to Matthews: Why would you need me to give you e-mails your own people sent? Couldn't you get the e-mails another way like by asking the attorneys that sent them? After all, the e-mails were sent by her people.

I told her no dice.

I wonder if this is a ploy to try and figure out who leaked me those e-mails? Or am I just being paranoid?