She believes the whistleblower has the shipside tracker. Wouldn't it be easy to confirm that, and make a definitive statement? All she has to do is ask the FBI.
Instead, she makes a weasel statement that can later give her plausible deniability if it's taken to trial. I believe...
The whistleblower was under oath, pretty adamant, and a lot less weaselly.
A Boeing whistleblower said there is a “criminal coverup” surrounding January’s Alaska Airlines blowout.
“Records do exist documenting in detail the hectic work done on the Alaska Airlines airplane, and Boeing’s corporate leaders know it too,” Pierson said. “I know this Alaska airplane documentation exists because I personally passed it to the FBI.”
(links above)
So who do you believe, the guy who's definitive, under oath, and testifying under penalty of perjury, or the nice lady who claims to believe, is not under oath and isn't really sure?