On the earlier post Vic rightly comments:
“To say that what someone said is not true, is not synonymous with saying that that person is a liar. One can simply be wrong about what one says, which is not synonymous with being a liar.”
And I might add the reporter has inserted the worth “truth” which implies that one of them has engaged in deception.
Still, my suspicion, and it is just that, is that Rubin communicated his interest in succeeding Mitchell to Ford one way or another and that it was no secret among the staff. There is nothing wrong with ambition or candor. At the moment Rubin is a candidate with more and bigger lawnsigns and the endorsement of the DNT. He’s doing just fine. The last thing he needs is a last minute accusation that he felt entitled to succeed Mitchell. No one much likes entitlement. Certainly Rubin is working very hard to win the job from Ford so he’s not waiting for it to be handed over. And according to Ford’s recollection that’s what she told Rubin he would have to do four years ago.
Maybe, as Vic suggests, she or Rubin is simply wrong, perhaps due to faulty memories. I don’t think I’d buy that conclusion considering the circumstances. Whatever conversation took place between them would likely have been burned pretty well into their memories because it involved something the one had just achieved and something the other had very much counted on. I simply suspect one of them is being less than forthright about the conversation. The conversation itself is not very important – rather like Martha Stewart’s receiving inside trading information. As you might recall that’s not what sent her to prison. In the criminal justice system the truth is supposed to count for something.
