“They are using “can’t comment it’s under investigation” BS to justify not releasing information. Why?”
Maybe because it’s under investigation? You know, usually the most obvious and least convoluted answer is the correct one. Nearly every investigation conducted refuses to release a large part of the evidence until the investigation is over. Public disclosures are the exception, not the norm.
“Because they are using this to further the governments agenda of gun control. “Never let a crisis go to waste”. They are propping up these dead children to further a political agenda.”
I do agree with you that politicians are using the crisis to push gun control. However, I don’t see how you make the logical leap from that to the investigators colluding with them to suppress something that would get in the way of that agenda. How can you determine that if you have no idea what they may be suppressing? It’s just pure, wanton, baseless speculation that isn’t worth a moment of consideration for a reasonable person.
If you came back, after the investigation had concluded and released a report that didn’t match up with some evidence, then I might pay attention. However, you aren’t doing that. You’re claiming a cover up, and yet you have no cover story to point to, since it doesn’t exist yet. As far as you know, the investigation may conclude that all of your suspicions are correct. Why don’t you wait and find out before making accusations?
They could make it easy and release the photos of Lanza allegedly shooting his way in and allegedly walking alone down the hallway carrying an assault rifle. That wouldn’t affect the investigation one bit and would put to rest the vast majority of questions as well. Would also be helpful to know who the guy in camo was and why his storry was dropped faster than John Doe #2 in OKC.
“I do agree with you that politicians are using the crisis to push gun control. However, I don’t see how you make the logical leap from that to the investigators colluding with them to suppress something that would get in the way of that agenda. How can you determine that if you have no idea what they may be suppressing?”
Why did Eric Holder meet with the investigators? Here’s one thing I know “they” are suppressing. What weapon killed the children? No one will say, without plausible deniability. It has been suggested that it was the .223. But please point me to any credible info where someone that would know says “the kids were killed with the AR-15. Now, how would that information jeopardize their precious investigation?
Maybe they were. Doesn’t make on little bit of difference to me. Dead is dead. But, what happens when, after New York basically bans “assault weapons” and El Presidente trys the same thing, we find out after their exaustive “investigation” that they were killed with a shotgun?
Hell, the left would then get a two-fer. If I were to want to kill as many people as possible in a confined space what would I use? Shotgun. Well we can’t have that can we? As Feinstein said “ban-em all”