If you say there's no evidence for something, what does that mean? Are we talking about something without positive verification, or that there is evidence the opposite is true.
If you are witness to a cover-up, that's not a signal that "no evidence" is a good position to take.
There is evidence they lied about what they were doing. What does that say about the probability of the existence of positive evidence?
They aren't covering up something that would make them look innocent I'll tell you that.
WRT policy, it doesn't matter where the leak actually occured. We should treat both scenarios are likely and plan accordingly. If the next leak does come from a lab, it's obvious the Chinese will cover it up anyway.
> If you say there's no evidence for something, what does that mean?
Back in the 70's, when the Pentagon was concerned that the Soviets were up to something, they would sometimes say in response to a world event that "And we have no evidence that the Soviets are behind this"-- as tongue in cheek "proof" of how clever the Soviets were about hiding their tracks.
<edit> to expand-- this was a standing joke which was useful for reducing workplace stress, not often a serious claim </edit>
If you are witness to a cover-up, that's not a signal that "no evidence" is a good position to take.
There is evidence they lied about what they were doing. What does that say about the probability of the existence of positive evidence?
They aren't covering up something that would make them look innocent I'll tell you that.
WRT policy, it doesn't matter where the leak actually occured. We should treat both scenarios are likely and plan accordingly. If the next leak does come from a lab, it's obvious the Chinese will cover it up anyway.