As to the obfuscation. He went on the Newt Gingrich podcast and said the idea of a lab origin was a conspiracy theory without any scientific basis eight days after a meeting he had with top scientists at which the majority were of the opinion that it probably was. In what way is that ‘not stating something as fact when it’s uncertain’?
He’d just come from a meeting where he’d been told it was uncertain, and he stated publicly that believing it amounted to conspiracy theory.
I can’t understand why people defend the man. I can’t understand why anyone would particularly hate him either. He’s just a normal political appointee.
Exactly. That’s his job and he did it. That’s it.
As to the obfuscation. He went on the Newt Gingrich podcast and said the idea of a lab origin was a conspiracy theory without any scientific basis eight days after a meeting he had with top scientists at which the majority were of the opinion that it probably was. In what way is that ‘not stating something as fact when it’s uncertain’?
He’d just come from a meeting where he’d been told it was uncertain, and he stated publicly that believing it amounted to conspiracy theory.
I can’t understand why people defend the man. I can’t understand why anyone would particularly hate him either. He’s just a normal political appointee.