any other ... official statement^].” (Emphasis added.) Therefore, Congress expressly proscribed both written and oral statements in Article 107. Finally, our case law has affirmed convictions for oral false official statements, even when not accompanied by a verifiable writing. United States v. Prater, 32 MJ 433 (CMA 1991); United States v. Harrison, 26 MJ 474 (CMA 1988); United States v. Jackson, 26 MJ 377 (CMA 1988); United States v. Reams, 9 USCMA 696, 26 CMR 476 (1958). Our second concern in this case is whether the oral statements allegedly made by appellant were official within the meaning of Article 107. In this regard, we note the following holding of the court below with approval: The substance of appellant’s statements was that he was leaving hi 8 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Appellant’s suggestion that his statements,
holding that where defendant lied to a federal magistrate performing an administrative function there was a violation of 18 usc  1001 holding that 18 usc  1919 did not implicitly repeal 18 usc  1001 holding that 18 usc  1001 which criminalizes making false statements to a united states agency is specifically made applicable to the postal service by 39 usc  410b2 holding that 18 usc  1920 the misdemeanor false statement provision of the federal employees compensation act feca preempted 18 usc  1001 because  41 of feca expressly repealed all inconsistent statutes holding that good faith is a defense to the willful filing of false statements under 18 usc  1001