If the source is attributing the quote to Aeyers himself or to Michelle Obama herself, why is there such an uproar over the validity of the source?
If these attributions were false, why wouldn't Ayers or Michelle Obama simply say so?
And BTW 240, comparing standards of proof from a legal stand point-- that depends if we are in civil court (preponderance of the evidence standard aka more likely than not 51%-49%) versus criminal court which is beyond a reasonable doubt (which is closer to 75%-25%). So, were these statements more likely than not made? I lean toward yes because there is no evidence to the contrary. Were these statements made beyond a reasonable doubt? Nope. There isn't an overwhelming amount of evidence which suggests the statements were made.
In this situation, there is no "hearsay" because there is no court room. Hearsay by definition is an out of court statement offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted. However, if we were in court and say Michelle Obama or Bill Aeyers was suing one of these writers for defamation (which is nearly impossible to do for two public figures unless actual malice can be shown) the statements would still be admissible non-hearsay under the Party Admission Exception/ Exemption ( depending if we are in federal or state court). The rationale being that a party to the lawsuit ( Obama/ Aeyers) is present in court and can refute the testimony given by the defendant in any number of ways during cross examination or by presenting extrinsic evidence that disproves the statements were made.
If the writers had cited an imaginary anonomyus source or something of that nature, then naturally I would be skeptical. However, when you name your source, its kind of hard to knock the writers credibility-- especially when the source refuses to confirm or deny the statements were made.
