I believe u/Geeee 's interpretation is correct. The former is a type of "eyewitness" testimony that can be and is used in court. Ex: The USPS whistleblower who testified to overhearing his direct supervisors discussing the backdating of PA ballots. He can (and possibly did) sign an affidavit to that effect and federal inspectors came and braced him so that Adam Schiff could tweet out that the postal worker ""recanted"".
The latter from u/Geeee 's example is rumor and innuendo and has no legal basis. IANAL, of course.
I believe u/Geeee 's interpretation is correct. The former is a type of "eyewitness" testimony that can be and is used in court. Ex: The USPS whistleblower who testified to overhearing his direct supervisors discussing the backdating of PA ballots. He can (and possibly did) sign an affidavit to that effect and federal inspectors came and braced him so that Adam Schiff could tweet out that the postal worker ""recanted"".
The latter from u/Geeee 's example is rumor and innuendo and has no legal basis. IANAL, of course.
Correct - in the last example, you need jrgreen or "John" to testify.