For grins let's consider Gibson bought 'stolen' wood. Does that mean they get to keep it because they didn't steal it, didn't know it was stolen and had a forged (not by them) bill of sale to prove it? At the very least the material would be confiscated and returned to its rightful owner.
I'm referencing 'alleged forged documents' supposedly proving the wood is legal.
There's a legislator in India who just agreed to end an 11 day hunger strike protesting the widely acknowledged massive corruption in that country's government. Do we choose to take that government's word over AMERICAN officials who are probably more honest than Indian ones? You can check the statistics on which governments are the most corrupt, India is close to the top. Is it possible someone was paid to look the other way when that wood was exported? I would say, YES. Is it possible Gibson is innocent of any wrong doing? Certainly. It also seems highly possible laws were broken which resulted in Gibson possessing 'stolen property.'
All I'm saying is let's take into account all the middlemen, governments, documents and laws involved before making a judgement.
Henry's spouting about all the people he's hired in the last few years. Couldn't he hire a few more to actually make the fretboards he's going to put on his "Made in USA" stamped guitars?