She actually didn't lie there. She told "a truth" in that the question asked something like "spend 100s of thousands on training courses?" Her answer was correct, you'd have to put together a pretty extensive array of *training courses* to get anywhere close to that amount and probably still wouldn't get anything like "100s of thousands". She (cleverly or inadvertently) answered the question accurately. The language of the question allowed her to do that. If Nick had asked "spend 100s of thousands on training and processing?" her answer *may* have been different.
I'm not defending her, I'm just pointing out that loose language leaves lots of wriggle room.
Correct, she didn't actually "lie" on that point, but she did "mislead", and misleading is also "contempt".Good point, PT. I would have to agree now that you point out the wording.
I'm just wondering how much a person could spend doing all those re-treads because of GAT?
I always wondered why SO freeloader debts were so huge considering they don't get much auditing. I suppose being sent to Flag for training would rachet up the bill considerably.
While many OSA people have had much practice at wiggling their way out of things, the deception during the hearing is something to call them out on, I believe.