Some people including some senators are shrugging off the nitty gritty of cross exam of the witness, saying its useless (and further triggering off lawyers vs non lawyers in the chamber conflict) However, for me, as studenet of logic and critical thinking, this hearings just like Corona case are living example of fine thinking: logic, critical thinking.
So far, yesterday, with cross of Atty Vinluan the defense, tipped the balance of facts in favor of the defense, if this post may give an opinion:
1. Unsigned unverified affidavit and comparing this with ICC;
2. Hearsay prior to the appointment as NBi director and yet makes comment on the investigation report
That further weakens the affidavit of agents which mas made prior to his appointment. Without ownership..
3. Presumed bias due to
1. The wife is a congresswoman who endorsed the impeachment
2. Theh witness has a column which has negative view of the person being impeached
4. The witness was not subpoenad, but volunteered
5. The witness did not answer on yes or no but argues (and thus leads the court) and makes his opinion
(to sway court). Not being called out by the court?
6. Continuing investigation. Therefore the affidavit of investigation being incomplete cant constitute valid and legal evidence vs the perosn being impeached
This post does not intend to sway nor influence the outcome of said proceeding but merely points out the defects in logic, and education on critical thinking. However this is weak day for the prosecution.
However I want to take advantage of the billions being spent on this proceeding to benefit my self improvement and continuing education
However, the agents of the bureau committed typo errors weakening their testimonies. And their credibility. (Not to mention their pending cases)
