Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.

Claim: Senator Thom Tillis changes position on President Trump's national emergency declaration for border wall funding

Q1: Did Senator Thom Tillis change position on President Trump's national emergency declaration for border wall funding?
A1: A Washington Post reporter called Tillis’ vote a "remarkable flip-flop." WRAL’s editorial staff referred to it as a "flip-flop for the ages." The Fayetteville Observer’s editorial writers said it was an "Olympic gold flip-flop." In a fundraising email, the North Carolina Democratic Party said Tillis "says one thing, then does another."

Q2: What did Tillis say about his change of heart?
A2: "My main concern with this executive action is future potential abuses. I have a concern with the executive action that the president took, the emergency order. That’s why I voiced it," Tillis said, adding: "But I’m sympathetic to what he was trying to do … and I thought we could view this as an opportunity to where maybe we could have a discussion about the National Emergencies Act and potentially make a real difference here."

Q3: What had Tillis originally said?
A3: "Although Trump certainly has legitimate grievances over congressional Democrats’ obstruction of border-security funding, his national emergency declaration on Feb. 15 was not the right answer," Tillis wrote.

This particular line of the op-ed stands out:

"There is no intellectual honesty in now turning around and arguing that there’s an imaginary asterisk attached to executive overreach — that it’s acceptable for my party but not thy party," Tillis wrote.
user
justification: It seems from the 2nd and 3rd QAs that the claim is indeed supported

verdict: 'Supported'
assistant