[Trinity_Tx]

See post above. The Washington Post article was just one of the sources that said the same thing.

There were many articles that came out in the days immediately following the video that were since found to be poorly researched, as many of us complained. Some has been directly proved wrong, some has been met with conflicting information. Some was based on assumption based on hearsay.

And some of these questions are still very, very compelling.

In the case of the e-mail, Ashcroft's direct words made to clear up the confusion would seem to be more trustworthy of evidence than the previous anonymous gov't sources quoting Nick's father's interpretation of what Nick told him two years ago.

Ashcroft could easily be covering up something. It could have happened the way Nick's dad said.

On the other hand, it would make sense that Nick simply remembered that the time he lent his laptop to someone on a bus was likely when his password was stolen, and since he was being asked how a terrorist got it, he assumed it was a terrorist on the bus.

[cyncooper]

I watched Ashcroft live, Trinity. I am fully aware of what he said.

I was referring the Washington Post making a flat statement of what the FBI concluded.

And you'll find no greater critic of poorly researched and buttressed articles than I. That's why I compare and contrast and look carefully for quotation marks.

As to Nick's father, he was completely on the record now, not being anonymously quoted and not claiming faulty memory from two years ago.

And note, I didn't say what I believed one way or the other. I don't leap to conclusions, and one can go too far straining away from a perceived conspiracy theory in a zealous attempt to debunk.