That's fair, he probably shouldn't lie under oath I agree.
The article has a very small paragraph about that, and the remaining 95% was just discussing that a deal was made. I guess since Bloomberg gave much more weight to the fact a deal was struck (rather than weighting the fact that Cook potentially lied under oath), I was focusing on the wrong thing.
It's pretty risky for a news organization to directly accuse one of the most powerful men in America of a crime. It's much easier for them to present facts and let people read that out of it. (And I nearly guarantee you the Congresspeople who spoke with him yesterday will see this article.)
The article has a very small paragraph about that, and the remaining 95% was just discussing that a deal was made. I guess since Bloomberg gave much more weight to the fact a deal was struck (rather than weighting the fact that Cook potentially lied under oath), I was focusing on the wrong thing.