"It's the solicitor general's responsibility, as it is anyman's responsibility when testifying in court, to ensure his testimony is accurate. " While true, i'm

"It's the solicitor general's responsibility, as it is anyman's responsibility when testifying in court, to ensure his testimony is accurate. " While true, i'm not sure what you expected him to do here. He asked and checked with his prosecutors. They told him they were doing something that they were in fact not doing. I guess I wouldn't expect the guy to personally check all of the many prosecutions here. There has to be some level of trust allowed for. At that point, I would just expect him to correct it if he was wrong. "I think it's appropriate to discuss what the ramifications should be, but it's naive to think Verrilli was not aware." So this i just flat out disagree with. You are basically calling him a liar who is covering his ass. Talking with people who know him quite well, i'm basically told he would never do such a thing, and that he did in fact, do what the article says. With all due respect to your opinion, i choose to believe them over you :) If that makes me naive, so be it. (FWIW: I certainly don't expect you to trust me on this, i'm just explaining why I hold the opinion I do)