Page:House-Intel-Glenn-Simpson-Transcript.pdf/28

Rh to do, which is kind of like interviewing in journalism, is figure out whether there's reason to think that what's being said is credible. And so we did a lot of that.

MR. GOWDY: Can you give me an example of something that he produced to you that you found to be not credible?

MR. SIMPSON: No, I don't think anything comes to mind. I mean, I must say my original reaction to all this was to suspend judgment. I was not particularly interested in some of the things that he found that are among the most controversial, because I didn't think they were useful or important for what I was trying to do. And so I to this day can't tell you whether a lot of those things -- I just don't have a strong view as to whether they are false or true, per se.

But what we did do is look at names and places and people and whether they matched up with information we could get elsewhere. And all of that, as far as it went, checked out. I haven't seen anything that has contradicted anything in the memos to date, at least not that I can think of.

MR. GOWDY: Well, that's a very different standard. You haven't seen anything to contradict it, whereas my question was, what did you have that corroborates it? How were you able to assess the accuracy of the information, the underlying information he provided you?

MR. SIMPSON: I'm sorry, I thought you asked me whether there was anything in there that I found to be wrong.

MR. GOWDY: I did.

MR. SIMPSON: I haven't found anything to be wrong. If you'd like me to get into more of the corroboration, I can do that.

MR. GOWDY: Yes, I'm sure we will get into that. My other question is, was there anything not included in your report that you concluded was wrong? In UNCLASSIFIED, COMMITTEE SENSITIVE