This has been a day of deep frustration. After yesterday’s thoroughly illuminating Supreme Court hearing, I expected some thoroughly impressive commentary. No such luck. I probably should have seen it coming when CNN.com’s homepage announced yesterday (and I have to paraphrase slightly because I can’t find the exact phrasing) “[Conservative Justices] Suggest Several Ways to Side With Trump.” That headline linked to a story detailing how virtually all the justices — not just the conservative ones — seemed inclined to rule in Trump’s favor.

Today’s writing isn’t much better. A number of columnists — several of whom have previously had work featured here — are trying to make the argument that the justices’ questions showed they want an easy way out of this case. None of what I heard yesterday suggests this. Columnists featured here don’t need to reflect my interpretation of events. They do, however, need to reflect the reality of events and, as far as this case goes, they’re doing a horrendous job. (This nonsense obviously isn’t just confined to the left. Earlier this week, an unfortunately prominent conservative commentator wrote that the border bill was paired with funding for Ukraine at President Biden’s insistence. Put simply: no.) Hopefully when the ruling comes out and the emotion wears off, the pundits will do better.

In the meantime, there’s another needlessly emotional story in the news. The special counsel’s report on President Biden’s mishandling of classified documents came out yesterday. Reporters and commentators quickly seized on sections of the report that detailed in quite stark terms the president’s lapses in memory. Many pundits on the left are decrying as gratuitous the special counsel’s inclusion of examples like Biden’s inability to recall the year his son Beau died (they sometimes leave out he couldn’t remember the time “even within several years,” to quote the report). To our rescue comes site favorite and former US Attorney Chuck Rosenberg, who on today’s “Morning Joe” explained why such information was indeed important to include. Rosenberg’s analysis doesn’t have to be the final word on the matter, but the man is an expert. He knows how these things work. So while reasonable people can still disagree, Rosenberg’s opinion ought to count for more than the rantings of countless non-experts looking to fill time. God bless the man.