Democrat Lawmaker During Impeachment Hearing: ‘Hearsay Can Be Much Better Evidence Than Direct In Some Cases’

1 378

Democrat Rep. Mike Quigley (IL) got torched today for claiming during the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry hearing that “hearsay” can be “much better evidence than direct” evidence. Say what? Since when? So it’s better than actual witnesses according to Democrats. What a bunch of bunk. In a rambling statement, Quigley said, “I guess to close, a primer on hearsay, I think the American public needs to be reminded that countless people have been convicted on hearsay. Because the courts have routinely allowed and created, needed exceptions to hearsay. Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct as we have learned in painful instances and it’s certainly valid in this instance.”

The reason he’s saying this is that of the two witnesses called today by the Democrats, neither actually witnessed Trump doing anything. Their aides overheard it or they got it secondhand. That’s not evidence… that’s the kind nonsense that burned so-called witches at the stake. Quigley continued, This is not legal or constitutional.

When asked about the quid pro quo accusation that the whistleblower filed a complaint on by Daniel Goldman, the lead counsel for House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), Taylor said, “What I can do here for you today is tell you what I heard from people. In this case, it was what I heard from Ambassador [Gordon] Sondland. He described conditions for the security assistance and the White House meeting in those terms. That is — they were dependent upon, conditioned upon pursuing these investigations.”

Both Kent and Taylor reaffirmed during their testimony that they were not on the July 25th phone call and only heard the accusations of Trump leveraging military aid for Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and Hunter Biden from other people.

Enter Donald Trump Jr. who ripped this guy a new one.

“Can you believe this insanity? ‘Heresay can be much better evidence than DIRECT EVIDENCE’ according to Democrat Mike Quigley,” Trump tweeted. “Are you fricken kidding me? 3rd and 4th party info better than hearing it yourself?”

Trump Jr. continued, “From a reliable 4th party source according to other Democrats like #FullOfSchiff the best evidence is (is) sh*t you just make up for political gain as that appears to be what they have been doing all along.” He concluded, “Sounds exactly like what someone would say when they’re desperate and have no actual evidence…” That’s exactly what it sounds like.

From The Daily Wire:

“Quigley was widely mocked online over his comments, including from Australian political commentator Rita Panahi, who wrote on Twitter, “I heard that Mike Quigley tortures puppies & then covers himself in goat poop & dances naked in the moonlight.”

“Dana Loesch also weighed in, writing: “Just want to add that these lawmakers who say “hearsay can be much better evidence than direct” are the same ones who want to subject you to a due process-less red flag system. I’m sure that will just stop with guns, right? You still cool with that?”

“One of the chief complaints from Republicans on House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry was the fact that the CIA whistleblower did not have any first-hand knowledge of the alleged incident and instead got all of his information from second and third-hand sources.

“The Federalist reported in September that there [are] significant changes made to the official whistleblower complaint form that allowed for hearsay to be used as evidence to submit the form. Federalist co-founder Sean Davis wrote:

Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community’s behavior regarding the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are reporting.

The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only “heard about [wrongdoing] from others.”

Get that? They intend to railroad President Trump regardless of the lack of witnesses and evidence. This should not be allowed.

Courts do not typically allow hearsay evidence because it does not allow defendants to cross-examine the person who made the statement or check for its accuracy, but the rule does come with exceptions, such as statements made that show the subject’s emotional state. That would not be applicable in this case and the hearsay rule would not be allowed.

After Quigley made his original outrageous statement, someone spoke up. “Will the gentleman yield, because none of those exceptions would apply to this testimony.” House Republican Whip Steve Scalise (LA) asked on Twitter, “In what universe is hearsay better than direct evidence?” calling the hearing “a total sham.” It’s hard to argue with that sentiment.

House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy tweeted, “Both of the Democrats’ star witnesses just admitted that they were NOT on the July 25th call between Presidents Trump and [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky. Everything they are saying today is 2nd or 3rd or 4th-hand knowledge.”

McCarthy added, “Democrats are trying to impeach the president based on a game of telephone.”

Impeachment Chairman Adam Schiff shut down the interruption, saying that it was “not the time for colloquy.”

A “colloquy,” the parliamentary equivalent of a football huddle, would have given members the opportunity to clarify what the hearsay exceptions were and how they did or did not apply to this particular hearing. Which should have been allowed as a matter of course during the hearing.

This isn’t a legal proceeding, it’s a kangaroo court… it’s political Kabuki Theater. It’s a farce and should be stopped.

Sources: The Daily Wire, The Washington Examiner, TheBlaze, The Daily Caller

You might also like
1 Comment
  1. Insectman says

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.