Reply #37: Okay, how about: "That's a mischaracterization of his activities, [View All]

[PurityOfEssence]

actually. We'd be happy to discuss his involvement at length."

Or how about: "General Clark's activities were in no way sinister in this involvement; it was a legitimate enterprise that had great promise for society at large."

Or even: "Although information gathering can be a sensitive issue, this was a cutting-edge business venture that was meant for the good of mankind. It's being quite misinterpreted"

Then there could be a simple: "I'm afraid this is a misunderstanding about the nature of that endeavor, and we'll be more than glad to point out the specifics."

Hey, I wouldn't even mind a little: "This is a mischaracterization, what you're hearing here is a little political sparring; you'll see that there's nothing to the contention."

Why not even: "Well, we are the competition, it's inevitable that someone would jump the gun with something as easily misunderstood as this."

Take your pick. Here's the crux of it: dismiss the allegation, offer willingness to disprove it, even characterize it as political sniping, but don't dance a jig of aristocratic glee at the snivelling failure who's desperate to hurt you, and then claim to be ethically above campaign ugliness. They hurt themselves on this one.