Over the last 20 years or so, I have had quite a few secretaries and, as they are called now, administrative assistants. They all knew far more than I ever did about how documents got produced, copied, filed, shipped, and what kind of typing, computing, faxing and copying machines were about. On those points, the Granny is probably highly reliable. But I never share my political views with them, I don’t discuss issues about my partners or senior staff with them, and if one of them claimed to know my views on those subjects they would be lying. And, of course, she is a partisan. So, she is likely to be reliable on the typing issue, where she is making an admission against interest, not reliable on the substance issue. That won’t be how the MSM spin it, but that is the fair way to look at it. The bottom line is the memos are forgeries, and the issue is not what conflicting witnesses say about the views of a man who died 20 years ago, but who committed the forgery in 2004.
If you boil it all down to its essence.
Ladies and Gentlement of the Jury, this "nice old lady" is telling use these forgeries are indeed a lie BUT they are a believable lie.