[trick question]

Where's the contradiction? DC said the reporter was wearing his credentials, and STT said that the person who approached him's credentials had swung around on their tether and he couldn't see them. Doesn't sound like any contradiction.

[an amused spectator]

Where's the contradiction? DC said the reporter was wearing his credentials, and STT said that the person who approached him's credentials had swung around on their tether and he couldn't see them.

initial statement by Seeking the truth:

"The Washington Post journalist never identified himself to my wife..."

insufficient "rebuttal" by D.C. Media Hor:

"there was at least one journalist who appraoched you wearing his identification..." (identification and credentials are NOT interchangeable terms, no matter what standards they have in American "schools" these days.)

===============================

D.C. Media Hor is trying to pretend that he identified himself, but is never willing to gainsay Seeking the truth's further direct rebuttals of the Hor's original Clintonian contention. ===============================

Hypothetical: Your boss sends you to a conference where you're required to wear a name tag. He tells you directly to wear a name tag to identify yourself to other conferees. You wear the name tag backwards. He sees you wearing the name tag backwards, and reprimands you.

Is the reprimand justified?