He thinks I’m wrong about the folly of Republicans’ holding hearings. He says that I’m unduly fearful of negative old-media reactions to such hearings. I didn’t say anything about old media, and I rather think that some bloggers would also object to hearings on First Amendment grounds. Anyway, my general point was that hearings would create allies for CBS that it does not deserve, and I think that point stands.

Hewitt continues, “Someone tried to manipulate a presidential election! If that isn’t a matter of Congressional oversight, nothing is. . . . Congress might not [choose] to do its duty, leaving it open to the charge that it just doesn’t care much about electoral honesty. Wait and see” (emphasis in original). It is possible that whoever forged these documents committed a crime (or crimes). It is not the case that it is the “duty” of Congress to hold immediate hearings on all election-related crimes, or all important election-related crimes–especially when other attempts to hold the people involved accountable are underway. Let’s see if pressure can make CBS cough up the identities of the forgers, and then see if any prosecutions make sense.

More Hewitt: “If the forger rides off unmolested, with only CBS News’ reputation left in ruins, the message is clear: Try again next time, only use better forgers. Whatever works is repeated. Whatever fails without penalty is improved and repeated. Whatever is punished–severely–goes away.” Congressional hearings are no guarantee that the forgers will be “punished severely.” Nor is severe punishment a guarantee that nobody will reach the conclusion that his forgery is so much better that it will never be caught. We have reason to think that current efforts to hold both CBS and the forgers accountable are in the process of succeeding–thanks not least to Hugh Hewitt!–and there is no reason for Congress to force the issue in a way that could well backfire.