in response to your note on my talk page gd the source is the philadelphia inquirer an eminently reliable source describes this whistleblower's testimony as scathing though at times vague no apparent verdict one way or the other on her credibility other than scathing though at times vague it's worth putting into the article since others are angling for a way to get acorn's self serving spin doctoring into the article one way or another and they weren't under oath