“...amateur affidavits aren’t credible evidence...”
Definition of affidavit - a written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as evidence in court.
but a fake dossier originating with the Clinton campaign is credible enough to throw the country into a tizzy for 3 years; fake charges of “sexual misconduct” are credible enough to smear a Supreme Court nominee; “anonymous’ sources are credible enough to smear someone for days, weeks, months or even years; quotes taken out of context are credible enough of repeat over and over again for years.
All of the above was used by the WaPo and all the other outlets for the last 5 years, and now they are saying “amateur affidavits” aren’t credible. Notice that none of the stuff that the WaPo found credible was confirmed by oath or affirmation.
“Definition of affidavit - a written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as evidence in court.”
In court, the affidavit and person making such is open to cross examination.
A sworn affidavit, in of itself, is not proof. At least until it stands up to cross examination.
That’s what democrats are!