During an IAD hearing, the appellant submits a series of text messages as proof their relationship with their spouse is genuine. The hearings officer questions the authenticity of the messages, arguing they could have been fabricated. Due to lack of documentary evidence regarding the genuineness of the marriage, the hearings officer cross-examines one of the witnesses. After the cross-examination, the hearings officer comments that the witness's oral testimony should not be considered as evidence. Which of the following arguments is best to object to the hearings officer's comment?

While oral testimony given under oath is generally considered evidence, this statement does not directly address the hearings officer's authority to comment on its weight or relevance. The hearings officer's role includes assessing the quality of the evidence, and merely stating that it is under oath does not challenge the hearings officer's critique.

Although a witness's credibility can enhance the reliability of their testimony, this argument does not counter the hearings officer's assertion that the testimony should not be considered. The hearings officer's comment suggests a dismissal rather than a challenge to the witness's credibility, making this response insufficient.

While one may feel that the comment is unfounded, this statement is subjective and does not provide a formal basis for objecting to the hearings officer's remarks. It lacks the weight of legal reasoning and does not address the specific authority of the Member in the process.