With all due respect heelsgo1, what "fact" are you relying on to say the applications weren't approved? You assert no fact exists to prove Ms Johnson lied (which is a fair/true assertion as far as I can tell), but where is the FACT that backs up your claim?
The justice system "may" provide some truth but it may not provide the "whole truth" depending on the case's disposition.
However, in the here and now a "fact" that is presented for consideration (part of the normal DD process) is the indictment that "factually" refutes previous hearsay information...
What does that tell you about "tried" (equivalent to "proven") & "convicted" (equivalent to "judged") data presented previously on this board? Given that outcome was lauded as great "DD" to be read by all, how do you justify the downplay of a "fact" now? To the extent that this board challenges the veracity of the indictment? Scratching my head here :-(
Until the justice system works itself out-- what are you implying for investor "judgment" in the moment? Is the "story" transitioning from one of denial of merit to allegations (the FBI conversation posts) to that of DoJ strong-arming (the current popular inference)?
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. Abraham Lincoln
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
