If you don't know where the statement originated then you don't know enough to state that it is untrue. Either way, I still have no problem with the statement.

If you don't know where the statement originated then you don't know enough to state that it is untrue. Either way, I still have no problem with the statement. We are essentially arguing over semantics at this point. You say any lawyer will do, I say it has to be a lawyer of his choosing. I fail to see how several different people making a statement about the man's level of involvement in the reporting is relevant to anything. The man says he has no involvement so anybody else stating otherwise is mistaken. What's the relevance to what's being reported? You're complaining about it; we're discussing it; I fail to see the free pass they have supposedly received.