WATCH: Prominent Democrat Claims ‘Hearsay Can Be Much Better Evidence Than Direct’ at Impeachment Inquiry

  |  
Nov 13, 2019

During the first hearing of the House impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump, a prominent Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee made the contention that hearsay “can be much better evidence” than direct evidence at the proceedings.

“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,” Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) said while facing Ukraine Ambassador Bill Taylor and deputy assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eastern Europe George Kent during today’s hearings.

“Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct, as we have learned from painful instances, and it’s certainly valid in this instance,” he added.

He can be seen making the incomprehensible statement here:

Quigley was referencing the 23 legally recognized exceptions to the rule making hearsay inadmissible during court proceedings. According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University, those exceptions are as follows:

(1) Present Sense Impression.
(2) Excited Utterance.
(3) Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition.
(4) Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment.
(5) Recorded Recollection.
(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity.
(7) Absence of a Record of a Regularly Conducted Activity.
(8) Public Records.
(9) Public Records of Vital Statistics.
(10) Absence of a Public Record.
(11) Records of Religious Organizations Concerning Personal or Family History.
(12) Certificates of Marriage, Baptism, and Similar Ceremonies.
(13) Family Records.
(14) Records of Documents That Affect an Interest in Property.
(15) Statements in Documents That Affect an Interest in Property.
(16) Statements in Ancient Documents.
(17) Market Reports and Similar Commercial Publications.
(18) Statements in Learned Treatises, Periodicals, or Pamphlets.
(19) Reputation Concerning Personal or Family History.
(20) Reputation Concerning Boundaries or General History.
(21) Reputation Concerning Character.
(22) Judgment of a Previous Conviction.
(23) Judgments Involving Personal, Family, or General History, or a Boundary.

While Quigley is technically correct that there are exceptions that allow hearsay to be admissible during certain court proceedings, his contention that it “can be much better evidence than direct” is an insult to the intelligence of the American people, and shows how Democrats are grasping at straws in the new phase of their witch hunt against President Trump.

It was essentially revealed during today’s proceedings that the entire case against President Trump is based entirely on hearsay, with the deep state whistleblower who filed the initial complaint being unwilling to take public questions:

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) of the House Freedom Caucus was particularly effective in his new role on the House Intelligence Committee. He embarrassed the Democrats for the partisan fiasco they have inflicted upon the American people.

Jordan rightfully pointed to President Trump as the big winner of the day, with the stupidity of the Democrats being showcased on a grand stage.

“I think it is a sad chapter for the country but a good day for the facts and the President of the United States,” Jordan said.

This sad chapter will hopefully come to a close on Nov. 3, 2020, when the public reaffirms Trump as president for a second term and the Democrats cries of conspiracy are muted once and for call.