Changed from this:
Coming next: “the evidence exists . . . we’re just sure it does!”
UPDATE: It’s worth noting the weaselly language the Times is having so much trouble with:
. . . evidence exists as well tying Mr. Christie to having knowledge of the lane closures . . .
“[T]ying Mr. Christie to having knowledge of” the closures? I’m not sure why he didn’t say “evidence exists that Mr. Christie knew” about the closures — but he didn’t. I don’t know what tying someone to having knowledge of something even means — but it sounds less impressive than proving someone knew something.
Is all I’m saying.