Paul:
Really?
You think the Times and the Post used multiple independent sources all of
whom made up the same story?
Am I correct in guessing that you haven’t much worked with the national
press or with members of Congress and staff?
Bill
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 1:42 PM Paul Mueller <paul.mueller.iii@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
What, that "congressional sources" and "congressional staffers" can shoot
their mouths off without knowing the facts, especially if it's off the
record?
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 11:15 AM, William Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx
wrote:
The initial news reports that the payload was lost cited “congressional
sources” and “congressional staffers”, respectively.
The rest is obvious.
Bill
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:26 AM David Spain <david.l.spain@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 1/11/2018 10:56 AM, Nick Horton wrote:
I was under the impression that the whole reason this is even beingspeculation.
discussed is that there is no official statement on the payload
status, from the NRO or otherwise.
Apologies if I missed this official statement from the NRO to
Congress, but I've only seen tentative/speculative statements from 3rd
parties that the payload was lost, with all official statements being
that its status is classified.
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:05 AM William Claybaugh
<wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
The NRO did not lie to Congress when it reported the payload lost.
To so do is career terminal for those involved and very damaging
to the organization’s future budgets.
There isn’t anything more to it; speculation about NRO lying only
reveals aspects of the character of those engaged by such
Bill
Same here. News to me as well.
Dave
