The base rule of the reports of someone trustworthy is that they are accepted. The exception is if his reports are contradictory to what others who are trustworthy have reported; just as in narrations that are irregular.
However, as for the base rule, then his (i.e. the trustworthy's) reports are accepted. It is not permissible to say a Muslim is lying and to reject what is with him from the truth. If this is the path that we are going to take (i.e. verifying the reports of the trustworthy), indeed, we will reject much Islamic legislation.
If a man (i.e. trusted scholar) sits before me, and he teaches me Qur’aan and Sunnah, he says to me: ‘the Messenger of Allah said in Saheeh al-Bukhaaree such and such,’ do I call him a liar?! Of course I don’t. Then why is it when he says: ‘such and such is an innovator (1),’ I say: ‘No.’?!
This methodology that has been named: ‘[The Methodology of] Verification’ is a lie. It is the [type of] verification by which one does not desire arriving at the truth; rather, he only desires to reject the truth. So, he rejects the truth, claiming a need to ‘verify’, and he doesn’t even try to verify [after that].
So, he has only used this statement of ‘verification’ as a tool of rejection, and he is not from those who actually verify information in order to ascertain the truth. The reality is that he desires to reject it.
For these reasons you notice them discarding countless, undeniable, widespread reports from lofty, noble scholars. They take their (i.e. these noble scholars') verdicts, rulings and narrations and they reject them with an apparently, relied upon Islamic principle (i.e. verification). However, they have distorted it into something relied upon for sataanic destruction. (2)