If you hate Perez, you won't want to watch his brief segment with level-headed Joy Behar. But the salient info gleaned was that the image he linked to was absolutely not of Miley with no underwear and he didn't PhotoShop it (if you've seen his PhotoShopping skills, this isn't hard to believe); Behar has viewed the photo, and while she finds it distasteful and invasive (don't get me started on where we'd have to draw the line in litigating distasteful and invasive—but it's at least a conversation worth having about what is either of those things), she definitely didn't contradict him on these points.
Behar does make the mistake of saying Perez is "in trouble" (he's not in trouble with the cops as far as anyone knows yet) as opposed to just at the center of a controversy.
Also of interest, Perez says he'd put the photo up uncensored if he could because it's not what people think.
Sorry to beat a dead blogger, but I see this as a non-issue. (The fact that people see it as an issue is the issue!) Even for the people who seem to think that a photograph of a barely underaged girl's underwear should be classified as kiddie porn, nobody has yet commented on my blog to answer my questions: If that kind of photo is kiddie porn, what does that make Miley's adult boyfriends? And if a crotch-centered image of a barely underaged girl should be called kiddie porn, what about the countless images of Cyrus in concert gyrating in a leotard, are those kiddie porn?