Because once you are in court you need to choose the words correctly.
DSespite the DNA exam being pretty exact you can't say "Yes, that sample is 100% match to X individual". You have to say "It correlates" or "Indicates"
On her case I think she got lawyers instructing her, but overall you received the reply everyone knows. No bioweapons. And if that was the case, Russia would have said they invaded because of bioweapons and not because... NATTZZEEEEEEEEs.
Despite the DNA exam being pretty exact you can't say "Yes, that sample is 100% match to X individual". You have to say "It correlates" or "Indicates"
But that's not what she said. She did not say "As far as we know, Ukraine does not possess biological or chemical weapons." She refused to answer the question altogether, and instead made a statement about biolabs.
You can't claim that she chose her words extremely carefully to avoid perjuring herself and then just fill in the gaps with the claim that she was avoiding.
Because once you are in court you need to choose the words correctly.
DSespite the DNA exam being pretty exact you can't say "Yes, that sample is 100% match to X individual". You have to say "It correlates" or "Indicates"
On her case I think she got lawyers instructing her, but overall you received the reply everyone knows. No bioweapons. And if that was the case, Russia would have said they invaded because of bioweapons and not because... NATTZZEEEEEEEEs.
But that's not what she said. She did not say "As far as we know, Ukraine does not possess biological or chemical weapons." She refused to answer the question altogether, and instead made a statement about biolabs.
You can't claim that she chose her words extremely carefully to avoid perjuring herself and then just fill in the gaps with the claim that she was avoiding.
Sorry she did not give the answer you wanted.