Investigator Finds No Evidence That BP Took Shortcuts to Save Money

This isn't very surprising. Certainly the ability to obfuscate is part of the job description of a high level employee at a major corporation. They have had several months to get their stories straight. And then of course the panel did not have subpoena power, which would have given them a deeper look into what might still remain of the paper trail. Plus there is some possibility (however slight) that these findings are accurate.

I agree with everything you've said (except maybe that "there is some possibility (however slight) that these findings are accurate" ;-)

Maybe it depends on what the standard is for evidence, and the lead investigator here is a lawyer, so he may have a particularly high (and maybe esoteric) standard for evidence.

As a layman on the subject, there have been a few articles (that I won't remember accurately) that pointed out mistakes were made--some problem with the blowout device and some problem with the (sealing) cement--if the drilling wasn't stopped to make an informed investigation into those reports (iirc, Halliburton reported to BP (or the drilling company) the problems with the cement), then BP saved money by shortcutting that process.

The reports of these problems, without followup reports of the subsequent investigation into those reports, is the evidence. A lawyer saying there is no evidence is just doing his lawyer thing for his client.

Well the 'good' news is that this type of investigation/whitewash should become more common, since the conservatives who blocked giving the commission subpoena power have increased their numbers after the last election. Now that BP has been 'exhonerated' I think we will now see Mr Issa in the house use his new subpoena power to go after the Obama administration for abuse of power in their dealings with 'innocent' BP. Intentionally or not we have voted to give even more immunity to these bad actors.