Still equivalant to circumstantial evidence from my POV. Now even Mike Lee is questioning. Is he a pro-Putin flunky?
Guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Maybe you read something else from Mike Lee, but all I saw was his statement that he wished he could "immediately rule out" that the U.S. blew up the pipeline.
That is not the same thing as stating that the U.S. was involved, was most likely involved, or was even probably involved. It means that evidence is scarce. And that shouldn't really be surprising given that the damned thing is under water.
Again, treating Lee's statement as some sort of "evidence" of U.S. involvement is simply confirmation bias - one wants so badly to believe that the U.S. blew it up, that one will treat all statements as confirming that belief, whether they in fact do so or not.