Don’t disagree with the “fairness” question. Think I said so myself.
My problem is the attempt to destroy the person personally before he’d even finished his statement.
Any objective person would wonder why attack the person when he’s not even finished (actually with some, before he even began) speaking.
No one in their right mind believes that is fair treatment. An objective person would believe there is bias/agenda afoot.
Thanks for your comments, though.
{FYI, I’m not claiming his comments, or any accusers, bear the same weight as Cain’s. But to disparage the person because one has already made their mind up isn’t fair, isn’t reasonable...and isn’t conservative.
I have been an expert witness. The most important thing to the attorney is establishing my credentials, my reputation and my independence or lack thereof BEFORE I get close to the witness stand.
It is perfectly appropriate for the hearers of testimony to understand what they can about the person before he speaks. In fact, those who introduce him are going to frame him as a reliable witness when they bring him out. In our current speed of communicating information that questions the reliability of the accuser is more imperative because once his claims are made they are next to impossible to stop.