What could BellSouth's loophole be?

BellSouth is requesting a retraction from USA today regarding allegations that BellSouth along with Verizon and AT&T had turned over customer calling information to the NSA.

BellSouth states in a press release on their website, the following:

"As a result of media reports that BellSouth provided massive amounts of customer calling information under a contract with the NSA, the Company conducted an internal review to determine the facts. Based on our review to date, we have confirmed no such contract exists and we have not provided bulk customer calling records to the NSA."

A recent Washington Post article titled BellSouth Wants Story Retractions quotes and comments the following: "Privacy advocates believe statements from the companies leave open the possibility that they may have provided calling data to the government, even if they did not do so under a contract with the NSA as the USA Today story said.
'The story came out in USA Today . . . and then all this dancing starting, which doesn't give people reason to believe it wasn't true,' said Mary J. Culnan, a professor at Bentley College and a privacy expert. 'These kind of carefully worded press releases where people just don't flat out say 'We didn't do it' -- I think that's why people continue to be suspicious.'"

So where is the wiggle room in the BellSouth statement?

BellSouth's statements
1. "Based on our Review to date . . ."
a. This infers that their review is not complete and therefore could be inaccurate

2. " ... we have confirmed no such contract exists . . ."
a. A contract is not required to hand information over to the government. neither is any formal or informal agreement, not even a hand shake, so why even make this statement?
b. Further, since their review is incomplete, it could be possible that they have not found a lost contract. (Contracts do get lost even in fortune 500 companies.)

3. ". . . and we have not provided bulk customer calling records to the NSA."
a. The other items mentioned previously left enough room for a freight truck to drive through, this lets a freight train get through. So they didn't provide it in bulk, they did not claim they did not provide it at all. They did not state that they only provided 1 record or 10 or 100 or 1000 or 1,000,000. Afterall what is the definition of bulk? Is it all the records that BellSouth has? Is it 1 part of 4? Is it hundreds of millions? tens of millions? millions? thousands or less?
b. The NSA is a very large organization with many different covert branches (maybe not as many as CIA but still) did BellSouth give bulk or anyother type of information to any entity representing or not representing the government? Did the records go to the defense department? Or some strange covert cell?

The quotes from The Washington Post make a point, this press release may do much to protect BellSouth legally, but leaves many loopholes that could be substantial on the public perception front.