I feel like we have to start enforcing a "what is the most likely explanation" standard of evidence on this stuff instead waiting to find a person with a smoking gun over a dead body with a note saying "I did it" pinned to their shirt. https://twitter.com/TheJedReport/status/1294522783502708736

This is particularly true with intent. If the standard of evidence for intent is literally higher than that in a court of law -- which for many fact-checkers it is, since they do not allow one to infer intent -- then of course all claims of malicious intent will be baseless.

But again, that's not how intent works. In courts, where the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt you can convict someone of premeditated murder because they bought a gun the day before. They don't have to say to someone "I'm buying this gun to kill a guy"

Policy and politics should have a *lower* standard of proof -- basically preponderance of evidence. What's the *most* likely explanation? But instead we are a stuck pretending we can infer nothing unless we find an email saying do this thing for these reasons. Pure idiocy.