Not quite. Showing the intent might be conclusive of the question. Not being able to show the intent may not be conclusive insofar as we are all responsible for the normal conclusions or the natural, reasonable conclusions one may draw from our actions or statements or omissions from statements. To some extent, you have to look at the whole pattern of events. If this is considered a material consideration, what this “not” in the document means--which, by the way, I think is to some degree a red herring--then you have to ask yourself if the intent is here to mislead the House in that document. You ask yourself not just if there is evidence of a direct intent but whether there is evidence of opportunities to make it clear that there wasn't and that the opportunities were not taken for that purpose.
Then after a while, as I was saying to Mr. McKay, it might be the reasonable conclusion that there was an intent here to mislead, because there were opportunities to clarify the issue and they were not taken.