Almost halfway through the editorial was this sentence: "But May's office appears to have handled its investigation with rigor, and his ultimate conclusion is defensible."
-
"But May's office appears to have handled its investigation with rigor, and his ultimate conclusion is defensible" appears to be the correct conclusion given the "facts" as stipulated by the editorial itself. So why did The Denver Post want to come to a different conclusion, and why did The Denver Post try to come to a different conclusion?