Attorney Scott Pilutik wrestles with the news of the day, from a lawyerly perspective…
Smart rethinking of the ‘goalposts’ metaphor in this set of tweets.
No matter what evidence is proffered, it won’t ever be good enough. The standard of ‘preponderance of evidence’ was met a month ago, and we’ve long since sped past ‘beyond reasonable doubt.’
Yet the media (I’m not talking about Fox, I’m talking about generally responsible outlets) keep chasing the dragon because political journalism is premised on the tension between competing narratives. So long as one side ‘competes,’ they’ll focus on the inflection point, no matter where on the crazy curve that point is located.
Yesterday’s GOP arguments offered doubt for doubt’s sake but offered no credible alternative narrative that might explain the now-gigantic evidence heap. The absence of one needs to inform everyone’s reporting.
Also, relevant to yesterday’s story…
