OK. So the story is still could be true. Remember, Quinn said a person TOLD him this story. It is quite possible that a person DID tell him this story.
I think he’s allowed to repeat any story he hears, so long as he doesn’t say he knows it to be a true story.
The DNC’s motivation here is to discover the source of the leak. Since it was a private conversation, it has to be someone in the office of one of the two present at the time of the conversation, or, the conversation was illegally recorded.
The problem is Quinn says he source does not want to be outed. Quinn has to out the person, who will probably deny it, or he will be called a liar and sued. If it was a recording, someone is going to jail.
The DNC wins either way. This is going to be a problem for Quinn and the radio station.
OK. So the story is still could be true. Remember, Quinn said a person TOLD him this story. It is quite possible that a person DID tell him this story.I think he’s allowed to repeat any story he hears, so long as he doesn’t say he knows it to be a true story.
That standard works for the Lefties at Snopes (who left this lie as "undetermined" until 2006 and still refuse to call Hillary a fibber)
We opined back in 2003 that Hillary Clinton's claim about being Edmund Hillary's namesake might not have been completely false since she didn't say she was actually named for the mountain climber, but rather that her mother told her she was named forhim — a minor but important distinction given how often parents make up harmless little fibs to amuse their children or misremember past events. Indeed, inOctober 2006 this was the excuse a spokesperson for her campaign provided in officially discounting the story:
For more than a decade, one piece of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's informal biography has been that she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary, the conqueror of Mount Everest. The story was even recounted in Bill Clinton's autobiography.We still find this explanation rather incredible. In order to accept it, one has to believe that only after Hillary Clinton was nearly
But yesterday, Mrs. Clinton's campaign said she was not named for Sir Edmund after all.
"It was a sweet family story her mother shared to inspire greatness in her daughter, to great results I might add," said Jennifer Hanley, a spokeswoman for the campaign.60 years old, and only after she had been pilloried in the press for more than ten years for claiming she had been named after someone who was virtually unknown in the U.S. at the time of her birth, and only after her husband had unknowingly presented the fictitious story as true in his own autobiography, did her mother finally confess that the "sweet family story" she told her daughter wasn't the truth. (Hillary Clinton doesn't have the excuse that other people were spreading a falsehood about her, as she herself was the one who initiated the claim back in 1995.)
As we noted back in 2003, this story was likely a little white lie concocted for a special occasion back in 1995, and even if it really was a "sweet family story" Dorothy Rodham told her daughter Hillary many years ago, the latter has almost certainly known for quite a long time that it was just a story.