It's always interesting when you see a damage control statement that basically boils down to "contrary to what you may have heard, <exactly the same caveats you

It's always interesting when you see a damage control statement that basically boils down to "contrary to what you may have heard, <exactly the same caveats you've already heard>". It's a subtle kind of straw man, where you reassure your audience by listing the same mitigating facts they've already heard, but act as if those facts have been previously omitted. I guess the goal is to produce the affect of reassurance when you don't actually have any substantive reassurance to offer. I wonder if this works, in general? My sense is that it always smells like bullshit, but I wouldn't necessarily recall instances where it didn't.