Journalists Keep Getting the Law Wrong (via Seth Abramson)

Is there a journalist reporting on the (not yet released except to Barr, selected Rs and pundits, selected West Wingers, and others?) Mueller Report who has read the Special Counsel regulations (28 CFR 600 et seq)? Did you read the authority (5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515-519) for and the source of those regulations (64 FR 37042, July 9, 1999 ….)?

Do you know the difference between evidence and proof, levels of proof needed for indictment versus conviction versus impeachment, standards (or levels or burdens) of proof, collusion and conspiracy, etc., etc., etc.?

It’s OK if you don’t know – if you’re willing to learn. If you want a 51 tweet long education in the above (except, you’ll have to read the special counsel regulations yourself), read Seth Abramson’s 51 tweet thread from 3/26/19 (and previous and subsequent threads, for that matter).

You’ll not find a clearer, more concise legal terminology explanation anywhere.

Journalists get legal research wrong, but they really, really, really get the law “even wronger.” And it does a lot of damage, so put on your “student” hats and do your homework.

[You can read an Internet Archive version of the above Seth Abramson thread if the live link dies.]