"The tape, without question, is real."

Writes NYT reporter Daniel Victor in the NYT, about the "Access Hollywood" tape, which I assume is "real," but I still wonder how a reporter can say "The tape, without question, is real." It's an assertion, and what locks it down as beyond question (other than the desire to put an end to questioning)? I understand the reason to assert that the time for questioning is over. I'm practical. Life is short. We need to move on. We're sure enough.

But it just bugs me when a reporter makes a flat assertion like this, with no attribution: "The tape, without question, is real." How can he do that? To my mind, he opens the question up by writing like that.

At the time the recording emerged — October surprise time — Trump rushed into damage control and said "I said it, I was wrong and I apologize." And that, it seems, is the only basis for Victor's strong pronouncement.

But Trump's response doesn't prove that the tape is real. It only shows that Trump decided that under the circumstances that the best tactic was apology, and perhaps that an effective apology included owning the remarks that he was apologizing for. But it doesn't prove beyond question that the tape is real. Trump could have been lying. It's also possible that he didn't remember saying it, but hearing the tape convinced him at the time that he must have said it, but now he thinks maybe somehow he was fooled.

A more subtle point is that he may have been admitting that he said the words that we all heard, but not that the words were true. I assumed, the day I heard the "Access Hollywood" remarks, that "Trump's statement — which is itself only words — is a confession to behavior. Criminal behavior. Sexual assault."

But it wasn't a confession under oath — and even confessions under oath can be false — but a "confession" in a context where he might be joking and exaggerating or just lying. He'd still be on the hook for portraying himself as entitled to "just kiss" a beautiful woman, but he was posturing in the presence of another man. Who knows the real context of Trump encounters with beautiful women that involved "just kissing"? Was it "social kissing" (a short kiss hello) or putting his hand on the back of her head, mashing his lips against hers and aggressively sticking his tongue in her mouth?

Was it a Hollywood kiss?



As for the more vivid "grab them by the pussy," Trump didn't say that about himself, but about "you" — if "you're a star." That was a critique of women, their indiscriminate susceptibility to stars, but it wasn't a confession.

My point is, there's a lot going on in the "Access Hollywood" remarks, and I don't know precisely what the issue is when I'm hearing that there is some questioning (from Trump, allegedly) that the remarks are not "real."

Is it that the tape that we heard doesn't exist? (That would be absurd.)

Is it that the voice on the tape isn't Trump's or that the tape is doctored or edited in a way that makes it inauthentic? (In that case, Trump, with more time to reflect, might want to retract his earlier "I said it." If that's the issue, is there any evidence?)

Or is it that the words that he really did say speak of things that are not real — that he doesn't "just kiss women" and that stars can't grab women "by the pussy"?

I don't know! What is the real question about the unreality of the tapes?

See? I've got questions galore now. I wasn't even going to talk about Trump's alleged questioning of the "Access Hollywood" tape, but Victor's "The tape, without question, is real" has set me off.