[Chummy]

I say hearsay?

It matters not whether Kerry "might have believed it, or at least believed most of it...." If he did not observe or experience the events himself, they are nothing but hearsay.

[secretagent]

Kerry referred to the testimony of named eyewitnesses. That testimony was taken so seriously that Senator Mark Hatfield called for an investigation into the claims. That inquiry, the NIS report, has unfortunately disappeared, so its no help. But my point is, the WSI wasn't just batted away as hearsay.

Just as a juror might believe the testimony of eyewitnesses, so to might have Kerry. Just as juries sometimes come to decision solely on the basis of eyewitness testimony, so might Kerry. Except he had the My Lai cover-up in mind, and some hinky stuff he saw in Vietnam.

We might get Kerry with an unfair trial charge: he didn't wait for a rebuttal from the defense.

Now that I write this, it seems obvious: the WSI has the smell of a commie show trial, especially with Kerry passing judgement without a cross-examination.