Gluttony for Punishment

Well, looks like Michael Matley is now saying he never authenticated the documents, just a signature. (Registration required at the Washington Post). After all, they're copies. (See page three, top of the left hand column).

So, with Matley backing off, and Hodges saying that CBS misled him, what the heck is going on?

And why the heck are we talking about this again? Last night, I was watching a debate between a couple of talking heads about the memos, and the person defending CBS asked why we weren't talking about what was in the memos, rather than whether or not the memos were authentic. I suppose, being a law student, my gut response at this point is ... first we establish the authenticity of the evidence, then we can talk about what the evidence leads us to. If you can't establish the authenticity of the evidence, it doesn't come in. We don't talk about it, we don't mention it before a jury. It doesn't count. And the implication that a trusted source of information could be duped like this, and that millions of people who watch their programs could be influenced by bad information is in and of itself an important issue. And for now that's all I have to say about that.