The AI verdict is too quick to dismiss the broader context of how power and corruption often operate in ways that aren't easily proven. The lack of direct evidence doesn't mean the claim is false — it just means the evidence is buried, destroyed, or politically inconvenient. The fact that multiple investigations failed to find prosecutable evidence against Clinton doesn't prove his innocence, only that the system didn't hold him accountable. The real issue isn't whether the claim is 100% proven, but whether the possibility of it being true was ignored or suppressed. That's the nuance the AI missed.