Yesterday, Dan asked the question, feeling perhaps that Rep. Issa had over-stepped in saying it. Dan’s question focused on the IRS scandal, but I think the question is broader than that.
In general, if Carney gets remuneration for saying things which are either untrue or at least very misleading (if technically true), and if Carney knows or strongly suspects that they’re untrue/misleading at the time he says them, the question’s answer must be: Yes.
From the comments, mixitup directed us to this video at The Blaze:
At 1:12, Carney says of Benghazi:
These protests were in reaction to a video… We don’t know otherwise. We had no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that many Muslims find offensive.
We know that Carney was speaking, at that point, from briefings or talking points which the White House [and State Department – ed. later addition] had intensively massaged to disguise the truth.
For this example, the question becomes: How much of a chance is there that Carney didn’t know that the talking points had been intensively massaged; that there was, in fact, contrary information to strongly suggest an attack; and that Carney was, therefore, misleading America as he spoke?
The White House handed Carney a pile of baloney and said “This is what you’re going to speak from.” Fine. But Carney is part of the White House. Did Carney know (or rationally suspect) at the time that he had been handed total baloney?