RE: Testimony: Are we being hypocritical?
November 19, 2017 at 10:49 pm
(This post was last modified: November 19, 2017 at 10:51 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(November 19, 2017 at 2:08 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:To be clear guys: I'm not implying that these women's testimony should not be accepted. I'm saying the opposite. I do believe them. I do believe they are credible. I do accept their testimony.
And yet when Ken Starr's Whitewater probe investigated the claims of Juanita Broadrick and Kathleen Wiley he found that they were not credible witnesses and dismissed them. "Belief" is useless. "Credibility" takes time to determine. Subsequent events in Moore's case provide a significant amount of supporting evidence.
Sure, so we're building a "case" against Moore based on testimony, corroborating hearsay, and established credibility of the witnesses/sources. But, does any of that technically qualify as evidence? I'm not arguing over the principals of reason in play here, as much as it probably seems like it. I guess I'm just being a pedantic asshole about what we get to call "evidence".
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
