I'm not sure how much further we can take this testimony, other than just to express my total incredulity at the fact that the language used in these professional communications is so specific. It seems obvious to many members of the committee that the language was meant to convey Mr. Clark's role and then was retracted.
If, hypothetically, as articulated in your June 17 email, Mr. Clark had been involved and had given the green light, which constitutes approval of the process, would that have been inappropriate?