Not a lawyer, although I took a semester of business law at LSU, so I'm almost a lawyer. :-/
To avoid tiring repetition of "in my opinion", there are other alternatives:
Various sources are reporting...
Some (people) are saying...
I'm not saying it happened, but what if it happened that....
I heard....
Or repeat the accusation with attribution to whoever made it, even if they are nameless or don't really exist. NYT likes to attribute to "well-place sources in the DOJ", or "High-level sources in the White House", or such.
This is bullet-proof so long at the one being accused is a public figure. It would take a lawsuit destined to fail to force revealing of the identity of the source. IOW, if the source doesn't actually exist, no one will ever know. Or if they are lying, they can't be held to account.
Obviously this allows scurrilous and baseless accusations, and empowers those w/ no integrity. For these reasons, Justice Thomas is lobbying inside the Supreme Court to revisit NYT v Sullivan.
Not a lawyer, although I took a semester of business law at LSU, so I'm almost a lawyer. :-/
To avoid tiring repetition of "in my opinion", there are other alternatives:
Various sources are reporting...
Some (people) are saying...
I'm not saying it happened, but what if it happened that....
I heard....
Or repeat the accusation with attribution to whoever made it, even if they are nameless or don't really exist. NYT likes to attribute to "well-place sources in the DOJ", or "High-level sources in the White House", or such.
This is bullet-proof so long at the one being accused is a public figure. It would take a lawsuit destined to fail to force revealing of the identity of the source. IOW, if the source doesn't actually exist, no one will ever know. Or if they are lying, they can't be held to account.
Obviously this allows scurrilous and baseless accusations, and empowers those w/ no integrity. For these reasons, Justice Thomas is lobbying inside the Supreme Court to revisit NYT v Sullivan.