I humbly suggest that Jango is a no-claimer, since he makes no claims, runs away when confronted with actual evidence and can produce no evidence for his position at all.
One doesn't have to personalize the argument to note that the argument denies consequent while stipulating all the relevant antecedents. That is, an argument that says it is not advocating a new investigation but all the while advocates the individual activities that comprise an investigation can be considered likely to have denied the consequent on the grounds that the consequent, by its name, is rhetorically problematic. Eschewing it forestalls being held accountable for it.
To illustrate, one may say, "No, I'm not asking you to make me a sandwich. I'm only asking you to go into the kitchen, collect some sliced meat and cheese and then some mustard, and pile it all on two slices of bread and bring it to me."
Similarly, to advocate that previously unavailable information should be sought out and disclosed, and that the implications of that information should be determined to see whether relevant conclusions can be drawn from it, or previous pertinent conclusions revised, is
exactly to investigate. Jango has, in this and other threads, advocated these activities. He says he used to want a new investigation, but doesn't want one any longer. However, what he seems to want doesn't have much chance of escaping that label.
