The fact checkers are indeed paid propagandists; however, I am more interested in the quotes from experts and regulatory bodies. Their use of these fallacious qualifiers as shields is evidence of their intent to protect themselves not just in the field of public opinion but also potentially in court. When a regulatory body says "No reliable evidence" that means that they are aware of evidence that they deem unreliable that is contrary to their preferred conclusion. When they say "Not aware of" that is equivalent to Hillary Clinton saying "I don't recall" dozens upon dozens of times. I would argue that these are a form of evidence of awareness of guilt as they serve to produce an artificial realm of knowledge selected as a subset from the available facts in order to produce a false pattern of innocent ignorance. 'The facts we picked support our case entirely.'