09-06-2018, 09:49 AM
No he did not have to "recall who he had spoken to there since Special Counsel Mueller began the investigation", he had to "recall who he had spoken to there since Special Counsel Mueller began the investigation" WHILST also being cognizant of who had worked for a particular company during that time AND be 100% certain in his answer.
What if he remembers fully EVERYONE he said ANYTHING about Mueller to AND EXACTLY what he said to each of them BUT doesn't recognise that a couple of people were or had worked in some capacity at the firm for some period of time?
Would THAT be okay?
Would answering "No" be truthful? Would it be factual? Would it be honest?
Would Senator Harris say "Fair enough, you did not realise so and so worked there.
Is he being shifty, dishonest, obstructionist avoiding that question?
What do you think is reasonable? Again, he may have many reasons to personally dislike him and his policies and not want him confirmed BUT that does not mean that he is being disingenuous in this or he is wrong to not answer definitively.
What if he remembers fully EVERYONE he said ANYTHING about Mueller to AND EXACTLY what he said to each of them BUT doesn't recognise that a couple of people were or had worked in some capacity at the firm for some period of time?
Would THAT be okay?
Would answering "No" be truthful? Would it be factual? Would it be honest?
Would Senator Harris say "Fair enough, you did not realise so and so worked there.
Is he being shifty, dishonest, obstructionist avoiding that question?
What do you think is reasonable? Again, he may have many reasons to personally dislike him and his policies and not want him confirmed BUT that does not mean that he is being disingenuous in this or he is wrong to not answer definitively.