We can all choose up sides and argue whether fairy dust or pixie dust is the most awesome.
I think the big cop-out, here, is that it virtually always goes this way.
Overwhelming evidence? Oh, well, we need to be more certain because he's a Republican; and we also need every fallacy we can find.
Unprecedented inquiry? Well, that was chasing down Bill Clinton and a real estate deal. Or was that a drug trafficking deal? Or a secret murder ring? Oh, hey, having an affair. Two decades later we see the insincerity of that impeachment; if we meant it, we would have actually done something about sexual harassment, violence, and exploitation, between then and now. Think of it this way: In the middle of #MeToo, both Monica Lewinsky and Juanita Broaddrick turned up, and nobody really paid much attention to them, especially Broaddrick. They've both been exploited by Republicans, in addition to whatever they suffered by Bill Clinton.
And it was, at long last, Republicans who actually compelled Lewinsky into a weird sympathy with Bill Clinton, when someone asked, sarcastically, about the time the Attorney General buried the Clinton inquiry and any details that might have embarrassed other people. Lewinsky turned up on Twitter with a three word response, "If … fucking … only." That is to say, again, we see how this goes.
Still, that was then, despite threading into now. When it came to the Republican actually lying to the nation in order to establish false pretense for war, whereupon he would deliberately send inadequate force and then undertake willful and calculated dereliction of the Geneva Conventions? Well, Republicans decided to not renew the law by which they had investigated the Democratic president because, in their view, the American people were tired of special investigations.
Apparently the American people got their taste back just in time for Republicans to gratify them with tinfoil Congressional investigations of the next Democratic administration.
The conspiracism, by the way, continues today; it was called #Pizzagate, and now is is an insane exercise called #Qanon; and even the journalists trying to cover it can't figure out why they should except for the obvious point of its persistence and growing rightist influence all the way up to words uttered before Congress by Attorney General Barr.
It's not like the one direction is a mystery.
Now we have the Attorney General of the United States lying to Congress about a Justice Department inquiry, and in such a manner as to shield a Republican president by misprision, and now that the inquiry report paints such a damning picture, we are supposed to tacitly take up the AG's observably false narrative because the best we can do is a both-sides equivocation to "choose up sides and argue whether fairy dust or pixie dust is the most awesome".
We see how this goes.
Congress has the right to view the full, unredacted report and its supporting evidence; this is beyond any vagary. To accept that, "We will never see an unedited/unredacted version of the report" is to cling to some technicality at best, whereby there will always remain at least one black bar in the report; even infamous files released to the public over the years have gaps in them, and sometimes we don't know if it's a matter of keeping a secret or if the originals were lost. We have better recordkeeping technology, now, though I admit I share at least some of your cynicism.
To the other, this is also like a lot of your expressed politic, where you might not support something, but just can't help saying the same things supporters say. It's actually a fairly common human behavior, but on this occasion we can at least make the point.
Meanwhile, despite largely consistent political results in these issues, some people continue to take such obvious bait, and others will eventually wonder if this is a matter of wanting something or not knowing any better; after enough repetitions, the difference is a matter of semantics compared to a consistent result.
The naked colloquial politic would be to say it really does look like American conservatives need special accommodation as if for disability. A more appropriate expression might simply be that we ought not be surprised at your application of vagary; it is common to both your posting and the vicious, rightist politics you would prefer not be seen as supporting but can't seem to avoid expressing.
Try the following:
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, shits on your lawn like a duck, then it must be a robot monkey with a rocket in its ass. And if our resolution is that there is no way to know because we will never actually have the rocket to examine, I will doubt the standard of observation, because it is its own dusted fancy.
Think about what the cynicism gets you: More of the same.
At some point, we can accept that's what you want not only for yourself but everybody else, as well. But that doesn't really mean it makes any sense. Ego defense, sure, but it's also a pretty rigid structure. Compared to that colloquial politic of conservatism requiring accommodation comparable to disability, though, the question of severity and disruption—
i.e., actual criteria for certain psych diagnoses—is largely a reflection on that larger collective politic. As an individual consideration, it's more an appeal to scrutinize the existential condition of what one is buying into, especially if one intends to turn around and sell it.
