> But then the prosecution doesn't need the video because they would have all of these witness, so why should it be admissible if it can't be authenticated? Th

> But then the prosecution doesn't need the video because they would have all of these witness, so why should it be admissible if it can't be authenticated? There's not a "prosecution." Did you read the article I linked? This is a civil lawsuit (which also means a different level of evidence required, ultimately) still in fairly early stages. The trial hasn't even started. "Judge Evette Pennypacker tentatively ordered a limited, three-hour deposition where Musk could be asked whether he actually made the statements on the recordings" - there's no ruling of fact yet about if the video is real, the Judge is just saying "this looks like a bullshit excuse to avoid having to talk about your past comments." The plaintiff is trying to get Musk to give a deposition regarding his claims about self-driving. Musk is trying to not even have to give that testimony. This is exactly that "we need to figure out if this evidence is real or not" process that you say is needed! Musk is just trying to throw that out and say "nah we don't even need it, it could be fake, ya know." The judge seems to think that a 6+ year old video from a fairly well-known publication carries enough weight compared to a lazy "IDK, sometimes people deep fake me" statement to be worth asking Musk further questions. That seems reasonable to me. > How do you propose to prove if he actually remembers or not? Obviously that's impossible, but it's also irrelevant. If he says he doesn't remember, but you have a video with an uploaded-to-Youtube-timestamp from 2016, and contemporary coverage, then you say "well, since you don't remember for sure, we're gonna go with all the evidence that suggests you did say this."