- Oct 10, 2020
- 8,362
- 3,124
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
The problem is that almost no one wants the truth.
I disagree it matters very much if she is testifying to things she has no actual knowledge of it casts doubt on the reliability of her entire testimony and considering the fact that there is no cross examination I find it very problematic additionally I find it objectionable that such testimony would be accepted by the committee, it speaks to the desire of the committee to paint a picture regardless of the truthfulness of that picture. AND it appears that eye witnesses are available to testify that the event or events she described did not in fact happen at all, that makes her a very unreliable witness.So news outlets and an unnamed source is dependable in this case? Odd how that works for you two.
From the Tweets linked, two Twitter accounts claim "a source" told them this -- and it apparently has been reported in various news publications. Again, we are now supposed to believe unnamed sources?
As for this particular story, if you had listened to her testimony today, she stated this is one story she did not personally witness, so she could not vouch that it was completely true (unlike the other stories where she was present and personally witnessed the things she testified of). I don't think it particularly matters if this story is true, particularly when you look at the rest of her testimony and how much of it has been confirmed in the testimony of other witnesses.
I did hear her say that, the attorneys who are members of this inquisition know very well that is hearsay but they let her go ahead. Why present such accusations if it doesn't matter if the accusations are true?So news outlets and an unnamed source is dependable in this case? Odd how that works for you two.
From the Tweets linked, two Twitter accounts claim "a source" told them this -- and it apparently has been reported in various news publications. Again, we are now supposed to believe unnamed sources?
As for this particular story, if you had listened to her testimony today, she stated this is one story she did not personally witness, so she could not vouch that it was completely true (unlike the other stories where she was present and personally witnessed the things she testified of). I don't think it particularly matters if this story is true, particularly when you look at the rest of her testimony and how much of it has been confirmed in the testimony of other witnesses.
I thought she was very clear about what she personally witnessed (most of it) vs what she was told. There was no attempt to conflate the two in her testimony.I disagree it matters very much if she is testifying to things she has no actual knowledge of it casts doubt on the reliability of her entire testimony and considering the fact that there is no cross examination I find it very problematic additionally I find it objectionable that such testimony would be accepted by the committee, it speaks to the desire of the committee to paint a picture regardless of the truthfulness of that picture. AND it appears that eye witnesses are available to testify that the event or events she described did not in fact happen at all, that makes her a very unreliable witness.
Now there seems to be even more doubt about her testimony.I thought she was very clear about what she personally witnessed (most of it) vs what she was told. There was no attempt to conflate the two in her testimony.
I thought she was very clear about what she personally witnessed (most of it) vs what she was told. There was no attempt to conflate the two in her testimony.