Replies

Well, you're just not with it, then. C'mon, man. Look what that Sherwin guy said: "investigators had not seen evidence". Parse it out, Clinton-style. Here's how it works. Have an office assistant bring in all the evidence and set it out for the investigators. Since the office assistant is not an "investigator", they can claim the "investigators" haven't seen any evidence. Then bring in the investigators. One is an affirmative-action hire who is legally blind, so they can't say that they've seen any evidence. Another had their CoVid mask slip up over their eyes and he couldn't get it loose for the few minutes he "examined" the evidence, so he didn't see any evidence, either. A third "investigator" got a cell phone call just as he entered the room, and unlike a certain former President is unable to multitask, so he spent the entire time on his cell phone looking out the window. Then they had to go to lunch and did so not having seen any evidence. So, there you have it, a perfectly logical, technically accurate narrative of how "investigators haven't seen any evidence". Kind of like "We were never really alone." (Because other people were in the building.)