# If the CBS documents are shown to be fraudulent, should CBS produce their source? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 14, 2004, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459 "2004-09-14T19:50:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![vibrotronica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a9a28c/32.png) [@vibrotronica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vibrotronica)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/201 "2004-09-23T18:43:04Z")
The memos are easily proven as fradulent if you have advanced knowledge of the forgery. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/202 "2004-09-23T18:53:56Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > That glove doesn’t fit. Correct. And, if I may, I think this exact same argument with a little twist applies equally to the Kerry campaign. If some dirty trickster at the DNC wanted to forge documents like this, why did they not simply vet them with their own document experts. It would not have involved expandign the conspiracy much more than is being theroized. That the documents were such obvious forgeries is evidence IMHO that they were not done by anyone with the sophistication of either campaign. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/203 "2004-09-23T19:00:06Z")
> [@vibrotronica](#): > > The memos are easily proven as fradulent if you have advanced knowledge of the forgery. While that is certainly true, it is not the same as saying that the documents are NOT easily seen to be forgeries if you DON’T have advanced knowledge… which, it would appear, is what you are trying to imply. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/204 "2004-09-23T19:03:56Z")
In addition, CBS’s own experts called them into question before the story aired. Were they in on the Rove thing also? ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/205 "2004-09-23T20:04:57Z")
Here’s the new Gallup poll relating to public trust in the media. Too bad that the CBS shenanigans has to spill all over the media in general – but that ‘appears’ to be what’s happening. It makes me wonder how this new level of public distrust will pay out in the election results. The new Gallup poll results show that public trust in media credibility is now at **its lowest point in 30 years.** As a side note, this Gallup poll was taken _BEFORE_ the CBS admission and apology but _AFTER_ news reports began to question the authenticity of the CBS documents. From the _Gallup_ website - > [@](#): > > Media Credibility Reaches Lowest Point in Three Decades > > CBS News incident latest in long history of media mistakes > > by Mark Gillespie > > GALLUP NEWS SERVICE > > PRINCETON, NJ – As media analysts and journalists wring their hands over the fallout from CBS News’ faulty reporting relative to President George W. Bush’s Vietnam-era National Guard service, a new Gallup Poll finds the news media’s credibility has declined significantly among the public. The Sept. 13-15 poll – conducted after the CBS News report was questioned but before the network issued a formal apology – found that just 44% of Americans express confidence in the media’s ability to report news stories accurately and fairly (9% say “a great deal” and 35% “a fair amount”). This is a significant drop from one year ago, when 54% of Americans expressed a great deal or fair amount of confidence in the media. The latest result is particularly striking because this figure had previously been very stable – fluctuating only between 51% and 55% from 1997-2003. > > Conversely, 39% currently say they have “not very much” confidence in the media’s accuracy and fairness, while 16% say they have “none at all.” > Clearly, something new has happened to shake public confidence in the media, but whether that “something” is the recent CBS News controversy is a matter of speculation… [http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=13132](http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=13132) ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/206 "2004-09-23T20:08:58Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > The trouble with the idea that the memos are a Karl Rove dirty trick is that the dirty trickster would have to create memos that could be easily proven as forged, but would also be accepted by CBS as authentic. I don’t understand how that can be done. Conspiracy or not that’s _exactly_ what happened. It _was_ done. Consider: - Tipping off those reporters created a feeding frenzy around those memos. - CBS got first dibs and then felt pressured to rush the broadcast because they were _afraid of being scooped_ (for a journo, this is the achilles’ heel). - Even though they still had doubts about running it hours before airtime, _Dan Bartlett’s acceptance of the memos_ gave them a false confidence that the memos weren’t going to be a problem. It was a bad call for CBS. But it’s not hard to see how all these (orchestrated?)factors increased the odds that they would make that call, _in spite of_ the doubts raised by the memos. Again, the question is _who tipped off those reporters_? ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/207 "2004-09-23T20:12:28Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > Conspiracy or not that’s _exactly_ what happened. It _was_ done. No, slow down a bit. It happened is not the same as it was done. The continents were formed. Does that mean they were purposely formed? I’m afraid even a feeding frenzy is not evidence of a conspiracy. It is a mechanism by which one could have been perpetrated. Can you propose a story which you could be assured of creating one? Can you propose a reason why any operative would have been assured of it? Back in July? > [@](#): > > Again, the question is _who tipped off those reporters_? That is the next question we need answered. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/208 "2004-09-23T20:27:32Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > No, slow down a bit. It happened is not the same as it was done. The continents were formed. Does that mean they were purposely formed? Agreed on that point. > [@](#): > > I’m afraid even a feeding frenzy is not evidence of a conspiracy. It is a mechanism by which one could have been perpetrated. Can you propose a story which you could be assured of creating one? Can you propose a reason why any operative would have been assured of it? Back in July? July??? There are no assurances. What criminal has assurance that he/she won’t be foiled? It was a calculated risk. > [@](#): > > That is the next question we need answered. Well, if you’re firmly in the “lone forger” camp it could only have been Burkett, right? The only way to put this to rest is to prove Burkett did it. And by proof, I don’t mean some people calling him crazy. Let’s maintain the same burden of proof for all speculation, shall we? ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/209 "2004-09-23T20:36:50Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > July??? Well, before August. Mid August surely. > [@](#): > > Well, if you’re firmly in the “lone forger” camp it could only have been Burkett, right? No, it could have happened just as he said. The forger could have been the person who gave him the memos. In fact, I tend to favor this possibility. I really don’t think Burkett would have forged them either. I admit that his technical skills may not be sufficient to say this in the same way I did for either political campaign. But it seems that he would have to have been really clinically ill to have thought he could get away with it. Not evidence to be sure. just MHO. I tend to favor the statistical possibility that there are so many more people out there with computers and access to the internet that it is simply mor likely to be on of them than it is to be Burkett or someone from either campaign. Of course, you have to limit the choices to someone who knew Killian was Bush’s commanding officer. And better yet, someone who knew he was dead. This was probably public knowledge, but not very widely known. Still, I think that leaves several million suspects, no? > [@](#): > > The only way to put this to rest is to prove Burkett did it. And by proof, I don’t mean some people calling him crazy. Let’s maintain the same burden of proof for all speculation, shall we? I agree entirely. The same burden of proof. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/210 "2004-09-23T20:51:23Z")
Than why doesn’t Burkett ‘out’ the person who got him in this predicament? Wait — Burkett says it’s because she’s mysterious and untraceable. Burkett also claims to have burned the originals handed over to him, so, it appears this mystery could never be solved. Both his source AND the documents are forever gone. Sorry, people, I don’t buy it. More likely Burkett typed the things and it’s more likely that Burkett is adding to his admitted list of lies simply because he doesn’t want jail time in his future. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/211 "2004-09-23T23:31:22Z")
I agree that is just as plausible. It should be possible to get phone records or something though. There aught to be some trace the he was contacted by a person. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/212 "2004-09-24T13:23:41Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > I agree that is just as plausible… “just as plausible”? I think not – at least not to those who didn’t practice their poltics as a religion. First Burkett is the ONLY person we know is a source. The ONLY ONE. Burkett has motivation to lie that some _unknown other_ is the ultimate source. Take this motivation with his admission that he has already lied about _THIS exact matter_, and add it to the fact that if he doesn’t lie now he’s going to prison, Burkett’s monominical hatred of Bush, Burkett’s pre-CBS internet messages that he ‘has something’ on Bush, and we’re left with evidence and motivation that goes to showing that Burkett himself typed these frudulent documents. Now add to this that one the faked memos many inconsistancies is the use of Army National Guard terminology, not Air National Guard terminology. Burkett was in the Army National Guard not the Air National Guard. Now - on the other side. What evidence is there for any of the tin hat scenarios provided by some of the posters above – that make any other scenario “just as plausible?” There is none. So, would “reasonable minds” see these possibilities as “just as plausible?” No. Look - a favorite professor of mine likes to remind us that _“the pigs get fat but the hogs get slaughtered.”_ The undisputed behavior of CBS, at a minimum, indicates a culture of pigs – with a few aspiring hogs in Mapes and Rather. Those involved in these unethical practices – Burkett, Mapes, Rather, and CBS generally, are certainly the gulity parties. The verdict is still out on Kerry’s aide, Lockhart, the Kerry campaign’s _Operation Fortunate Son_, and whether CBS colluded with the Kerry camp and provided advanced notice of the memos. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/213 "2004-09-24T17:53:17Z")
> [@Tigers2B1](#): > > “just as plausible”? I think not My appologies. That was a bad turn of phrase on my part. I did not mean to say that someone other than Burkett was equally likely to have forged the memos. Clearly (as you lay out so well) there is a good deal of evidence to implicate him. I probably should have said something closer to many of the elements of his story are plausible. My bad. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2004, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/214 "2004-09-25T11:10:56Z")
I’m not sure if this is the right place for it, but [CBS is now delaying a report on the reasons for war](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/25/politics/campaign/25cbs.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1096106904-y13OTNg2F8C5ipEjEQa7IQ) until after the election. > [@](#): > > The Iraq segment had been ready for broadcast on Sept. 8, CBS said, but was bumped at the last minute for the segment on Mr. Bush’s National Guard service. > […] > “We now believe it would be inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election,” the spokeswoman, Kelli Edwards, said in a statement. > […] > The CBS statement followed a report in the online edition of Newsweek that described the frustration of CBS News reporters and producers who said the network had concluded that it could not legitimately criticize the president because of the questions about the National Guard report. > > According to the Newsweek report, the “60 Minutes” segment was to have detailed how the administration relied on false documents when it said Iraq had tried to buy a lightly processed form of uranium, known as yellowcake, from Niger. The administration later acknowledged that the information was incorrect and that the documents were most likely fake. Oh, the jokes just write themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2004, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/215 "2004-09-25T14:39:00Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > …CBS is now delaying a report on the reasons for war until after the election… CBS understands that ANY documentary produced by them now - will fall under heavy scrutiny. The delayed documentary, of which you speak, was produced under the same CBS culture and, as such, possibly the same standards as Memogate. CBS knows it had better have it’s documents legitimately authenticated and it “sources” actually checked this time round. After the recent display of systemic problems, I don’t blame them for delaying this. If CBS produces Memogate II, so close to Memogate I – it’s history for a whole host of CBS brass-asses. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/216 "2004-09-26T00:15:51Z")
> [@Tigers2B1](#): > > CBS understands that ANY documentary produced by them now - will fall under heavy scrutiny. The delayed documentary, of which you speak, was produced under the same CBS culture and, as such, possibly the same standards as Memogate. CBS knows it had better have it’s documents legitimately authenticated and it “sources” actually checked this time round. After the recent display of systemic problems, I don’t blame them for delaying this. If CBS produces Memogate II, so close to Memogate I – it’s history for a whole host of CBS brass-asses. I agree that they need to take a hard look at their standards of evidence. However, from Ms. Edwards’ statement, it sounds like they’re overreacting. There’s nothing wrong with airing a piece that puts the president in a bad light just because there’s an election coming up. They aren’t just delaying it while they verify the facts; they’re delaying it until it’ll be irrelevant. Hopefully another news organization with a little more credibility will pick up the story. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/217 "2004-09-26T01:15:19Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > I agree that they need to take a hard look at their standards of evidence. However, from Ms. Edwards’ statement, it sounds like they’re overreacting. There’s nothing wrong with airing a piece that puts the president in a bad light just because there’s an election coming up. They aren’t just delaying it while they verify the facts; they’re delaying it until it’ll be irrelevant. Hopefully another news organization with a little more credibility will pick up the story. So you’re saying that CBS refuses to air a legitimate news piece? Even where lives are on the line? But why? Because they’re concerned about their image?? Lives fir image? So, cutting to the chase here — are you saying that CBS STILL lacks credibility or is just the same organization run by Rather-like buffoons? And more importantly, are you saying that CBS is STILL dishonest _even after_ — _even after_ they so humbly shared with the world that they lacked credibility? **OR** – are you saying that deep-seated wrongness doesn’t take a 180 in lees than a month? So — are you saying that CBS has decided to lie to us again, or are you saying that CBS is lost ethically? Lots of questions but I really don’t understand – ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/218 "2004-09-26T02:06:17Z")
> [@Tigers2B1](#): > > So you’re saying that CBS refuses to air a legitimate news piece? Even where lives are on the line? But why? Because they’re concerned about their image?? That’s what I think. They got burned by the forged memos, and some people seem to think they rushed to air that story not because they were eager for a scoop, but because they’re evil lib’ruls hellbent on tarnishing our poor president’s name. They don’t want to reinforce that image by airing another story that’s bad for Bush, whether or not it meets journalistic standards. Or perhaps they don’t want to air it because the parallels between an administration relying on phony evidence and a news team relying on phony evidence are just too obvious, having already been covered by an Emmy and Peabody-winning fake news show. > [@](#): > > Lives fir image? So, cutting to the chase here — are you saying that CBS STILL lacks credibility or is just the same organization run by Rather-like buffoons? I’m saying they’re foolish to bury this story just to protect their image from those assassins who think that anyone who airs a news story that paints Bush in a negative light is biased. If the story is well supported, they should air it; if not, they should say that instead of this “it would be inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election” nonsense. > [@](#): > > And more importantly, are you saying that CBS is STILL dishonest _even after_ — _even after_ they so humbly shared with the world that they lacked credibility? **OR** – are you saying that deep-seated wrongness doesn’t take a 180 in lees than a month? I believe their stated reason for burying the story is a lie. There’s no journalistic obligation to only say nice things about the president in the month before an election. And what they’re covering up with that lie… well, I wouldn’t say it’s unethical not to run the story (unless they were pressured into it by the administration), but it sure is cowardly. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/219 "2004-09-26T03:37:42Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > …They got burned by the forged memos, and some people seem to think they rushed to air that story not because they were eager for a scoop, but because they’re evil lib’ruls hellbent on tarnishing our poor president’s name. They don’t want to reinforce that image by airing another story that’s bad for Bush, whether or not it meets journalistic standards. Well, if the facts you provided are correct and whole, I think we both can agree on at least one of your suggestions — CBS didn’t meet journalistic standards yet once again. Sometimes consistancy isn’t a virtue. CBS has it bad. > [@](#): > > Or perhaps they don’t want to air it because the parallels between an administration relying on phony evidence and a news team relying on phony evidence are just too obvious, having already been covered by an Emmy and Peabody-winning fake news show. CBS will not run a legitimate news story because “the parallels” “are just too obvious?” What strange thinking on the part of CBS. Again ---- if true ---- CBS STILL hasn’t learned their lesson. If true, CBS is showing an inability to think critically, if not, their just unethical to the pore. > [@](#): > > I’m saying they’re foolish to bury this story just to protect their image from those assassins who think that anyone who airs a news story that paints Bush in a negative light is biased. But ---- but ---- but ---- wouldn’t that be CBS’ saving grace. To show that there are “assassins” out to get them?? Assassins waiting to strike whenever CBS paints Bush in a negative light. They could do another _60 Minutes_ piece. Call it _Assassins Made Us Do It._ Shit ---- forgot. Under the new CBS, CBS II, you have to have evidence. > [@](#): > > I believe their stated reason for burying the story is a lie. We agree. It’s yet another CBS lie. No lessons learned — they’ve been in the lie business too long. Unlearning old lessons takes time. > [@](#): > > And what they’re covering up with that lie……well, I wouldn’t say it’s unethical not to run the story (unless they were pressured into it by the administration), but it sure is cowardly. So! It’s **ethical** not to run the story because, as you’ve suggested the possibility, the Bush administration made 'em? I know it’s just your unsupported guess about Bush — but, if true, THAT’S ETHICAL?? Come on! ---- How? How would CBS not running a story because _“they were pressured into it by the administration”_ be ethical? Otherwise – If the first scenario you seem to imply is true AND the Bush administration _isn’t_ the force making CBS _not_ run the story ---- I repeat my original suggestion. Maybe CBS wants to re-check their story. Maybe it’s that innocent. Maybe they recognize themselves for what they are – or were. A deeply troubled organization. Maybe they’re trying to be better citizens than they’ve been. Sadly, they’re still lying while doing it all – if what you posted is true — whether they do it your way or mine. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459/220 "2004-09-26T03:43:36Z")
Ooops – just noticed that on the last part – about the Bush Administration — you said "it’s unethical not to run the story ( **unless** they were pressured into it by the administration) -------- didn’t notice the “unless.” So my last statement doesn’t apply. My bad – [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-cbs-documents-are-shown-to-be-fraudulent-should-cbs-produce-their-source/264459.md?page=12)