Good lawyers are good at pursuing any completely bullshit argument they can if it'll help their "side." Fine for an adversial legal system, perhaps, but when employed in politics in the context of "both sides" journalism it means journalists give complete bullshit arguments equal weight to non-bullshit ones. As casual news consumers are supposed to trust the "paper," putting it in print grants bullshit a legitimacy it wouldn't necessarily have. If this reporter at this distinguished paper presents this argument as having merit, then it must!
