4 ms·
It's not "assuming" anything to say he went to the White house meeting about these firings. Knew about the firings. Didn't dissent in the discussion or object t
by sigmar 4y ago
It's not "assuming" anything to say he went to the White house meeting about these firings. Knew about the firings. Didn't dissent in the discussion or object to the final outcome of firing people
From the report:
"Truman and Webb discussed a strategy of engagement with the Hoey Committee determining how they might “work together on the homosexual investigation”"
- Taywee 4y agoFrom the agency that compiled the report: "The report found no evidence that Webb was either a leader or proponent of firing government employees for their sexual orientation." I haven't read the 80+ page report in its entirety, but I am not going to take an out-of-context statement from the report that concluded his non-involvement as some evidence against him. That statement sounds perhaps damning, but I can assume that the context might paint a more complete picture, or perhaps it was recollected by somebody else, or maybe the extent of it was that Truman called for a meeting with Webb with the goal being "work together on the homosexual investigation", and Webb attended the meeting out of professional obligation. I don't know. I do know that the statement is from the report that concluded that he was NOT involved, so right off the bat, I can conclude that in isolation, it's misleading.