No hard copy evidence seems to be the call of the guilty.
Innocence just needs to say it is untrue. They think that evidence that can be presented in court is the only thing that will convict them. What they seem to be missing is that the nature, and definition of credible evidence is evolving, The greatest condemnation can rise from the proof that becomes clear through consequences.
An English political comedy 'Yes Minister' was particularly close to the truth, when a civil servant described the reactions of politicians to rumors.
"When they're false, deny them. When they are true Deny them absolutely"
It must have been a Bush order. The CIA, aren't supposed to be stupid enough to bring an...

No hard copy evidence seems to be the call of the guilty.
Innocence just needs to say it is untrue. They think that evidence that can be presented in court is the only thing that will convict them. What they seem to be missing is that the nature, and definition of credible evidence is evolving, The greatest condemnation can rise from the proof that becomes clear through consequences.
An English political comedy 'Yes Minister' was particularly close to the truth, when a civil servant described the reactions of politicians to rumors.
"When they're false, deny them. When they are true Deny them absolutely"
It must have been a Bush order. The CIA, aren't supposed to be stupid enough to bring an issue like that to public attention in that way. Perhaps Bush gave her a bonus for cruel and unusual punishment. It's so hard to find good people who have a clue what cruel and unusual punishment is.