I'm placing a self-imposed embargo on myself on Mitchell Report posts in the absence of any real additional news on the subject. At least for today.

Much of what was said or revealed there in terms of specific players had already been reported in news accounts. The Clemens business was certainly interesting in terms of details, but it lacks the fortification of independent verification. And that's probably the major disappointment in all of this for me. Maybe I've spent too much time in courtrooms as a reporter, but a great deal of the implied guilt aimed at players fails to pass the "reasonable doubt" test. Or even a preponderance of the evidence. And remember, these were lawyers who were rooting around here.

But, of course, that's not what we're talking about -- beyond reasonable doubt based on direct or super-convincing circumstantial evidence -- so you can hold your notes about how this isn't a court of law or why would so-and-so lie or what about those canceled checks. And I've heard some pundits contend that Mitchell must have had other good reasons for including certain names that just aren't in the report. What???  Does anyone think that any substantial bolstering of the report's conclusions was actually left out? I guess I just expected more solid proof than we got as a result of 20 months of investigation and millions of dollars in billable hours and even some assistance by law enforcement.