Grand Jury Report: Environmental Extremists Who Defaced a Priceless Painting at the Smithsonian Arranged Press Coverage With the Washington Post Before Committing Their Crime

This feels like a conspiracy to me.

What is the definition of a conspiracy...? The agreement that one or more persons making the agreement will commit a crime.

The Washington Post "journalist" and videographer who showed up to document this extremist Art Insurrection are co-conspirators.

The Post credited this to "John Farrell, Jackson Barton/The Washington Post" when it published the video as part of its report. Jackson Barton has been the Post's "breaking news video editor" for nine months, according to a press release from WaPo's PR department last August. Quite a scoop -- and a coincidence, no?

Er ... probably not. A grand jury returned an indictment against Smith and Martin yesterday, charging the pair with felonies for an injury to a National Gallery of Art property (40 US 6303, 6307) and conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States (18 USC 371). Both could cost the two defendants up to five years in prison and $250,000 per count, although they're likely to get shorter sentences than that if they have no prior convictions.

But let's get back to the WaPo's good fortune in having a reporting team on scene when the attack occurred. Was that just a coincidence? Not according to the grand jury:

Below, a cameraman in Sweden has a very different opinion on whether one should conspire with environmental extremists.

posted by Ace at 02:23 PM

| Access Comments