My dad was a print correspondent from a one-horse town in the sticks. His paper sent him to DC as an experiment in 1950. He stayed for 50 years, on the job until cancer took away his last breath. He was chummy with Senators and Congressmen from all the Great Lakes states and St. Lawrence Seaway states from 1950 onward (think of the list who THAT entails). His political leanings never got in the way of his reporting, but he did all his own research, and NEVER fucked up. Not a media celebrity, but all the media celebrities knew him.
I'm betting that Rehm's research staff is to blame for this. This was too blatant an error for her to make deliberately, and my bet is that she thought it was such an easy thing to verify or debunk, that it wouldn't have gotten by her people if it was a blatant lie. She should have smelled a rat, but if a reliable, trusted researcher told her it was true, and that person hadn't screwed up in the past, she had no reason to doubt this, suspicious as it should have been (as in "why has this not been mentioned by ANYBODY before now?"
was total bunk.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read