Today, you’ll see many mainstream media reports saying Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook denied any involvement in the “bird-dogging” activities revealed by James O’Keefe’s video investigation released last week by Project Veritas.

But, did he really? I don’t think so.

As is typical with everything surrounding the Clintons, you need to really look at what he said and parse the sentence down to its actual meaning.

Here’s the alleged denial, courtesy Daily Wire:

Tapper: We talked about this before the last debate, but two Democratic operatives, Robert Creamer and Scott Foval were caught on tape talking about instigating violence at a Trump rally in Foval’s case. The last time we spoke, you said any violence is unacceptable. Have you looked into whether or not Democratic operatives paid by the Democratic National Committee were actually instigating these horrific actions, these violent actions we saw at Trump rallies. That’s, I mean, I’m sure you would agree, if that’s true, that’s really offensive. Mook: Well, violence is unacceptable. These individuals no longer have any relationship with the DNC. They’ve never had a relationship with the Clinton campaign, and my understanding is that the events that are references happened in February of last year, they did not have a contract with the DNC until June. But putting all that aside, this was again, a video that was leaked out for the purpose of damaging the campaign. It was edited, so we don’t know what the full context is, and there is no evidence whatsoever that we have been able to find that anyone ever did anything like this when they were working for the DNC.

Did you catch that last sentence? It’s a thing of beauty.

“There is no evidence whatsoever that we have been able to find that anyone ever did anything like this when they were working for the DNC.”

Let’s break this down, shall we?

“There is no evidence whatsoever…”

OK, well, that’s a legal statement that really doesn’t deny the activity took place. When someone says “there’s no evidence that this illegal activity took place” they aren’t saying the illegal activity didn’t take place, they’re saying you can’t prove the activity took place.

But… it gets even more deceitful a few words later:

“There is no evidence whatsoever that we have been able to find…“

Oh… OK, so it’s not that there is no evidence of this activity, all he’s saying is they couldn’t find any evidence of the activity! Well, how hard did they look? If the evidence is discovered months from now (after the election) Mook can say his denial was truthful.

But, this non-denial gets even more insidious:

“There is no evidence whatsoever that we have been able to find that anyone ever did anything like this when they were working for the DNC.“

Holy crow this is now just word salad that has nothing to do with the Project Veritas videos! “When they were working for the DNC”??? Nobody ever claimed Creamer, Foval or any of the other dirty tricksters revealed by O’Keefe’s investigation “worked for the DNC.” They worked for community organizing and political activist groups that were paid by the DNC – sometimes through one or two other organizations removed from the DNC.

Why were they not paid directly y the DNC and why didn’t people who worked for the DNC engage in these activities directly? So a political hack like Robby Mook can deliver a statement like this. Also known as “plausible deniability.”

Weasel words delivered by a political weasel.

So, why didn’t the Clinton campaign directly and unamiguously deny any knowledge or involvement in the reports outlined in O’Keefe’s investigations last week? O’Keefe himself suggested last night on Faceook that he has an answer. And at noon ET today, we will all learn what he knows: