They're playing a semantics game, the same as Wray did when he testified. They just define 'undercover agents' their own way and then deny there were any, just like Clinton and the definition of 'is'. So they'll say there were no 'undercover agents', and then not talk about 'confidential human sources' at all, not an ounce of integrity, nor any sign that they care for the Constitution or the rule of law. They think they're clever, when all they are is pathetic patsies for those with the money who control them using their own greed.