You're missing the point. The accusation that you're repeating (and which has been repeated uncritically by the mainstream media, albeit with a throw-in "this is uncollaborated", and by the Echo Chamber without even that conditional) is so far -- as far as we know -- merely vapor from the mind of one AP writer who has a history of writing right wing argle bargle that later turns out to be false.
You're basically saying, "but what if it turns out to be true." I'm saying, the burden of proof is on a claim of existence, not non-existence, because the latter is logically unproveable -- it could always be under the very next rock.
I'm sure there are plenty of cases of this that you'd have no problem identifying if the shoe was on the other foot, but the VRC is so desperate to kill this deal, or anything that comes from the Obama administration, that they're willing to suspend the normal rules of both logic and journalism just to get a blaring headline.
tl; dr: you should know better.
