Whistleblower(s) from IRS sworn testimony on Biden Investigation

[Dill]

(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.

Yes, that's right, BY.

Testimony IS evidence, but it also has to be cross-examined, evaluated in relation to other testimony. 

A whistle blower makes a statement. "My supervisor said X." That's not stand alone slam dunk proof. 
The supervisor also gets to state his version of events, his testimony, and then both are compared to what documentary
record can be had. If there is a conflict, then the cross-examination begins to resolve the conflict, if possible.

Most every witness statement in the 1/6 hearing was met with a storm of counter-testimony, at least on various media.  
That's why often see in such cases that people go after credibility--so-and-so's wife donated to the Dems. 
And don't shy from intimidation--Here are the addresses of his children, etc.