The longer Dan Rather digs in in the face of contrary evidence and supposed "witnesses" abandoning him, the more I'm inclined to think his daughter is in on this. I've been thinking it,because it just doesn't make sense otherwise for him to stand by these documents in their totality despite his own "witnesses" denying their authenticity. It would've been so simple for him to just say that maybe there was something wrong here when all the evidence showed that there was something fishy here.
I've been thinking this too. The absolute "I trust my source". It was not rational. A father would trust his daughter so completely, yet she may have used him.