![]() It's much more effective than a friendly witness who would be expected to agree. ![]() Normally I don't use the Examiner, but the part I used got it right, and like any good lawyer, when you can get a hostile witness to admit you're right, you use their testimony. MelanieN ( talk) 18:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Melanie, I agree. The meaning of what McCabe said is clear - that he could not state in public what information they had verified, or based on what intelligence. The very title of the Washington Examiner article - "They got nothing" - betrays that it is POV. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Steven, so do you still object to my addition? If so, per PRESERVE, how would you improve it, rather than deleting it? - BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 20:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC) That's a POV article from an unreliable source. I have no idea why they would do that (I can guess but it would be a guess), but he would be unable to say "yes we verified that" if it was in fact no in the document.". But the source makes it clear at least some of those questions involved alterations to the text he was being asked about. BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 16:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Would not implies it was because he did not want to answer, Could not implies he was unable to answer the question they asked. As I see it, "could not" (your words) and "would not" (the quote) are two very different things. McCabe never claimed the FBI had verified the substantive allegations in the dossier, but he also never said the FBI had not been able to verify the dossier's explosive allegations, either. McCabe said he did.Īnd that was the gist of the questioning on the dossier. ![]() After the questioning established that McCabe would not verify any substantive allegation in the dossier, he was asked if he stood by its veracity.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |