As I recall...
I recall having had that discussion, as well. From me:
Message 34477376
Message 34202553
I recall having an extended conversation with i-node about the dubious nature of testimony not subject to cross examination. I would think that you would want that evidence held until trial where the evidence can be effectively refuted. Not fair to not hear both sides before making a judgment, after all. As i-node used to argue re the Select Committee evidence, there has been no cross-examination. Because, I argued, that format had no provision for it. We're a long way down the road from there, there still has not been a formal rebuttal let alone cross examination, nor has there been a credible informal rebuttal. Different situations call for different levels and types of evidence. Some things, like a criminal trial, require more; some things, like accepting as plausible fact what some yahoo says on SI will pass with less.
The topic on the table, from Thomas:
an early transcribed interview conducted by the committee included precisely that evidence from a key source
So, we have some unnamed person who was supposedly interviewed by the Committee. If it happened at all, we know there was no cross examination. We don't know what other checking it out may have been done by the committee. Was it testimony under oath or simply an interview? Is the person credible and/or in a position to know? This is a topic for which there would be documents, after all. Yet all we are told is that somebody said something to the Committee. Need more than that.
I repeat:
Your offering is insufficient. Show me where the claim was somehow validated or give it up. |
