I used the qualifier "assuming Conley told the truth" to establish an axiom, since the author did that implicitly. Everything else was pure deductive reasoning.

I used the qualifier "assuming Conley told the truth" to establish an axiom, since the author did that implicitly. Everything else was pure deductive reasoning. That aside, I personally believe that the entire media and all public figures will lie on behalf of what they believe to be "the greater good." Their goal is not "truth." For that reason, I don't believe this interview communicated any meaningful information; I also don't believe the follow-up last week communicated any meaningful information. I don't assume Conley told the truth. My comment intended only to point out a flaw in the deductive reasoning of the article. (Regarding your assumption about me, this is the exact problem with trying to develop opinions by reading between the lines. It's easy to develop strong, unfounded opinions without any evidence.)