Appendix 4, fn. 16

If you ever took a philosophy course in college, you will understand the meaning of the discovery Jonathan Last makes regarding the deep thought underlyling the Thornburgh Report’s critical failures: “It’s worse than you thought.” Based on my own reading of the report’s text, I found the report to be a deeply compromised document. Last’s article does not add to that conclusion, it merely puts an exclamation point on it.
What accounts for the failure of Thornburgh and Boccari to draw the necessary conclusion from evidence that establishes a fact beyond a reasonable doubt? What accounts for the failure of Thornburgh and Boccari to pursue evidence on the critical issues that the report leaves open? My inference is that these twin failures are attributable to a single failure of nerve. Drawing the necessary conclusions from the evidence marshalled in the report and gathering all the evidence necessary to draw conclusions on the issues that the report leaves open would result in a lethal indictment of CBS News in toto.
Although I can sympathize with an attorney such as Thornburgh who draws short of killing his client, I find it difficult to respect the product of his work. On this point, see Tony Blankley’s timely column, “Damage control at Black Rock.” As Last demonstrates, the report labors under limitations that render it laughable in critical respects.

Responses

Books to read from Power Line