[newzjunkey]

But as a major newspaper of record how do you know the lawyer is an authetic source without knowing the client? You can't run articles based on the say-so of a random lawyer (or even a known lawyer) who might've posted something online in a dirty tricks campaign. How did the Post discover and verify the true identify of NCPAC?

From my perspective, they have to know the identity of MD4Bush to verifty the chain of custody of this "information" and the veracity of MD4Bush's claims. It would seem they should have to know who NCPAC is so it's not a crank. You can't simply take MD4Bush's say-so interpretation on the freepmail exchange.

This isn't just any newspaper: it's the Washington Post. They took down a GOP president. They also sued FR.

[gov_bean_ counter]

IMHO, MD4BUSH is the whole stinking newsroom using a shared password.

[conservative in nyc]

But as a major newspaper of record how do you know the lawyer is an authetic source without knowing the client?

That's a very interesting question. I guess you could ask the lawyer for his client to do something to prove he has authority - like post something here. Or, if you know the lawyer's trustworthy, you can just trust him and hope all is for the best.

How did the Post discover and verify the true identify of NCPAC?

We still don't know for sure. Most likely, the "intermediary" told them, or they did a simple search through NCPAC's threads here. NCPAC left some snippets of personal information here and there which, in hindsight, could have been used to identify him. There were also more exotic theories that someone used a keystroke logger, or someone who worked with NCPAC (Michelle Lane is the name that is most mentioned) outed him.