Hoisted from comments:>Joe S.: I’m a lawyer. I agree with Brian. The smoking gun has long been in plain sight: Yoo’s omission of Youngstown Sheet & Tube in his torture memo. The recent release merely adds to it. However, as a lawyer, let me point out something else. It will be extremely hard to convince a jury of this in a criminal case. There is the presumption of reasonable doubt, and any competent defense lawyer can lay down thick, thick smokescreens with this kind of evidence. Much as I would like to see John Yoo as a lifelong guest of the federal government (conspiracy to torture), it won’t be easy, even if there were the prosecutorial will.Two observations. First, I don’t think that there is “reasonable doubt.” A jury of lawyers would find the omission of any attempt to distinguish Youngstown a smoking gun. Whether a prosecutor would be able to convince a jury of nonlawyers that the omission is a smoking gun is an open question–but if the prosecutor were unable to do so that would be a miscarriage of justice. There is no “reasonable doubt” here.Second, the standard for terminating employment at Berkeley is presumably not a “reasonable doubt” standard but a “clear and convincing evidence” standard.