We just disagree on your interpretation of their use of language. Them saying they have not concluded the actions have happened. Is them claiming the evidence is not convincing to them.
OK, we flat out disagree. I think you are simply wrong about what the language means. Moreover, I think that they are deliberately phrasing it that way so that they can avoid saying that the evidence is not convincing to them.
OK, we flat out disagree. I think you are simply wrong about what the language means. Moreover, I think that they are deliberately phrasing it that way so that they can avoid saying that the evidence is not convincing to them.
A agree the phrasing is intentional. I think we both agree they are lying scum.
But the meanings of the word concluded is pretty darn clear. As is the meaning of not.
As I say my written grammar (and spelling) may be poor. But my language comprehension is pretty fucking good.