Enter hypothetical president.
In his world, if a witness says a woman was raped, and the "victim" says it never happened, he'd still say the witness hasn't been proven to be wrong.
"Without evidence," he thinks the witness is still telling the truth even without the alleged victim's corroboration.
That's not "objectivity." That's living in an alternate reality. Sure, anyone CAN lie, But, the most unreliable testimony in any courtroom is that of witnesses. What they think they saw or heard is quite often disproven with the physical evidence. It can take just one detail in the witness' testimony to be proven inconsistent or false to discredit the entire account.
"I was driving down H-2 that day at noon when I saw the defendant hit the bicyclist."
"Then how do you explain this ATM video from Kaneohe showing you making a withdrawal from your account at exactly 12:15 on the day in question?"
Just that one detail shatters any weight their testimony may have had. Same goes for the hearing. To find out that the agents don't corroborate her story, and the note she swore she wrote was actually not from her, brings her entire testimony down as being not credible.
Handwriting experts? LOL! All it takes is a side-by-side enlargement of a sample from her to see if the note matches. Most laymen can see that since most people have very different writing styles.