Response to my letter

Keith Hafner, apparently (unless I have the wrong Keith Hafner from Seattle?) a member of the Democrat party (not that there's anything wrong with that, just offering full disclosure) responded to my letter about substantiation with one of his own.

The best part is where he claims the letter provides substantiation, but doesn't actually say how it does so.

I am writing to him directly, asking him for the actual evidence he claims the letter provides; I don't anticipate an enlightened response.

In your response to my letter you claim the memo provides substantiation.

I want to know, since you bothered to write the letter saying this, why didn't you actually show exactly what evidence the memo provided? Maybe the editors cut that part out of your letter? If so, I offer you the opportunity to tell me directly what this evidence is.

I read the memo entirely, a few times, and I didn't see it. And I've never seen anyone say what it is. Most people in your position falsely state that just because the man was there, his claims are de facto substantiation, but that's silly. Substantiation would be some evidence that this is actually what the administration was doing -- such as a quote or memo from the administration to that effect -- and not merely a claim that could be nothing more than his own opinion (which is definitionally not "substantiation").

So, can you give me one detail from the memo -- just one -- that substantiates the claims it makes?

I look forward to your reply.

I wonder if he is gonna get mad that I e-mailed him directly. Heh. If so, he can complain to the 34th District Democrats.