[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.

[Chummy]

Kerry referred to the testimony of named eyewitnesses.

This is hearsay. According to the 'Lectric Law Library, hearsay is "...secondhand information that a witness only heard about from someone else and did not see or hear himself...."

That testimony was taken so seriously that Senator Mark Hatfield called for an investigation into the claims.

Almost anything could be investigated, and the US military was being accused of war crimes by Just for Kerry. Wouldn't it make sense, in the context of the times in particular, to delve further into his claims?

...But my point is, the WSI wasn't just batted away as hearsay.

Don't confuse Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and that which veterans stated; it's only hearsay if they didn't observe or experience it themselves, but only related what they heard from another.

Just as a juror might believe the testimony of eyewitnesses, so to might have Kerry.

There is no correlation between a juror in a court of law and Just for Kerry in this instance. Think for a moment of the myriad differences between the WSI setting to which Kerry heard others talking -- no cross examinations, for example -- and then how he walked away from this to conclude what he heard were facts.

Just as juries sometimes come to decision solely on the basis of eyewitness testimony, so might Kerry.

There is no basis of comparison between these; Just for Kerry was a national organizer of VVAW, and apparently accepted what he heard on face value, and then related it as fact to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Except he had the My Lai cover-up in mind, and some hinky stuff he saw in Vietnam.

Do you seriously deign to state you have firsthand knowledge of what Just for Kerry had in his mind at the time, ie, My Lai?

Some "hinky stuff he saw"? He was in country for roughly four months, and his time is well accounted for. Are you aware of his home movies of his Excellent Adventure?

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

What you get is what you got and hope to again avoid: the self-serving testimony of someone who cannot be trusted.

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.

Bingo.