In an attempt to resuscitate his promotion and justification of attacks by activist hedge funds, Prof. Bebchuk has published a new paper ("Don't Run Away from the Evidence: A Reply to Wachtell Lipton") accusing me of running away from the evidence; a serious accusation, but demonstrably untrue.
We already responded to these claims in detail in a post, Don't Run Away from the Evidence: A Reply to Wachtell Lipton, available on the Forum here, that explains why the criticisms raised by Wachtell (and now again by Allaire-Dauphin) do not undermine our findings and conclusions.
At one stage, amid confusion over Patel's evidence, he replied: "I'm not a very good wordsmith".
Asked if the agency had evidence, he replied Thursday that readings from test sensors "prove conclusively" that mock warheads "were destroyed and were no longer a threat".
To one who suggested it had not happened because she did not have photographic evidence, she replied: "I had both my hands full with children, couldn't get to my phone fast enough".
Asked on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show whether senior figures from the last government such as Blair and Straw could be asked to give evidence, Rifkind replied: "Certainly we would request any former minister or serving minister who has a contribution to make to our inquiries, to give evidence.
When a reporter asked if he'd advised the White House to avoid tweeting things that are not backed up by evidence, Nunes replied, "The American people, for the most part, enjoy it".
Chloe Smith, the Cabinet Office minister who is giving evidence alongside Clegg, replied by arguing that changes of this kind required plenty of advance warning.
There is no evidence that Coulson replied but, in his evidence to Leveson, Coulson admitted he did become responsible for the media handling of the day, the only time, Coulson says, that he became involved in any aspect of the bid.
