Yahoo Exec Didn't 'Lie' To Congress... Was Just Uninformed
from the that's-my-story-and-I'm-sticking-to-it... dept
A couple weeks back, Congress asked Yahoo's general counsel Michael Callahan to stop by and chat about his earlier testimony, noting that he'd told Congress that Yahoo had no information on how China was able to track down and jail journalist Shi Tao even though documents released this summer showed that Yahoo actually was involved. Yahoo's response to Congress was that the implication was "grossly unfair and mischaracterizes the nature and intent of our past testimony." Of course, that didn't explain the two factual bits of information: (1) Callahan said Yahoo had no idea what happened (2) documents showed otherwise. Given the two weeks to figure out how that mischaracterized the nature and intent of the testimony the best Callahan could come up with is to plead ignorance. He's now apologizing and saying he was ill-informed when he last appeared before Congress. That could be true, but in his new statement, Callahan admits that he realized he had misinformed Congress a few months after his original appearance, and chose not to inform them (which he regrets). However, if that's the case, why did it take him two weeks to say that publicly after first lashing out at Congress for pointing out his clearly incorrect earlier statements?