Whistleblower(s) from IRS sworn testimony on Biden Investigation

[Luvnit2]

(07-20-2023, 03:07 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: In legal cases, oral testimony or statements made by individuals involved are a significant form of evidence. However, the weight of this evidence greatly depends on the credibility of the individual providing the testimony, their ability to recall events accurately, and how consistent their statement is with other known facts and evidence. For instance, if a person has a history of dishonesty or if their account contradicts physical evidence or the testimonies of other credible witnesses, their words may be given less weight or even disregarded. Sometimes the way a person behaves during their testimony, such as their body language or demeanor, can also influence how their words are interpreted.



If a prima facie case cannot be made out without it, the writing is indispensable; if the prima facie case is established without reference to it, oral evidence is admissible. Many cases would fall within such a rule.


https://barprephero.com/legal-terms/evidence/oral-evidence/

They presented back up evidence to their testimony including recap emails after meetings to their bosses. A F.B.I. agent has also collaborated their testimony. Add in, one is a gay Democrat who was the lead I.R.S. supervisor. Why would either risk their jobs or possible prison for perjury? If you watched the hearing, both were very credible and why the Democrats had to attack Trump over an over again.....because they had nothing on the whistleblowers.