Wow I didn't fully catch the stupidity of that line. I was interpreting it as "the FBI hasn't found evidence of corruption", but it really doesn't even say that. Rather, in a weaselly, passive voice the writer is stating that - in his esteemed view - he certainly doesn't see how Biden's son's corruption could have affected the president's decisions. Then he stuffs an unrelated clause about some investigation (what investigation? the IRS probe?) in the middle of the sentence to confuse people. It may as well read "Nuh-uh, you can't prove anything!"