From Perino this morning on the GOP campaign briefings violating Hatch Act...

Reporter: How about this political interference with the Hatch Act?

Perino: There wasn't political interference within the Hatch Act. What you're talking about is --

Reporter: Use of the government agencies?

Perino: It is perfectly lawful for the political appointees at the White House to provide informational briefings to political appointees at the agencies. No laws were broken, and we provided more information about that last night.

Reporter: Was that all vetted through the Counsel's Office prior to those sorts of sessions happening? What sort of oversight was done within the White House?

Perino: Yes, generally -- because it's not unlawful and it wasn't unusual for informational briefings to be given. They were run by Sara Taylor and Scott Jennings.

Reporter: But there's a higher standard, obviously, at the White House than no laws were broken. Aren't there ethical questions, as well?

Perino: There were no -- what ethical (rules) would have been broken?

Reporter: No, in terms of using federal resources, federal people to encourage people. The allegation is out there that people were being encouraged to help Republicans.

Reporter #2: And targeting certain Democrats --

Perino: There is no prohibition under the Hatch Act of allowing political appointees to talk to other political appointees about the political landscape in which they are trying to advance the President's agenda. None.

Reporter: You say it's not a violation of the Hatch Act.

Perino: Not a violation of law, or of ethics.

Reporter: So why is the Office of Special Counsel investigating it, if you're still saying that it's clearly fine, why would they be investigating?

Perino: You'll have to ask them. You'll have to ask them.

Update: It's like we said over at TPMmuckraker this morning: it's all about plausible deniability.