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:
— Gregg Jarrett (@GreggJarrett) November 13, 2019
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:
WATCH: Both of the Democrats #impeachmenthearing witnesses just admitted that they were NOT on the phone call with President Trump and Ukraine's President Zelensky.
Democrats only care about hearsay and opinions, not facts! pic.twitter.com/28lHfT2qWk
— Trump War Room (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@TrumpWarRoom) November 13, 2019
First it was the Russia Hoax, now it’s the Ukraine Hoax.
And what are Democrats basing this sham on? HEARSAY. pic.twitter.com/Olzhy2LBYX
— Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) November 13, 2019
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.
“This anonymous so-called whistle-blower with no firsthand knowledge, who's biased against the president, who worked with Joe Biden, who is the reason we're all sitting here today— we'll never get a chance to question that individual.” –@Jim_Jordan pic.twitter.com/1pZ785nXgq
— GOP (@GOP) November 13, 2019
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.
FLASHBACK: Three Recent Supreme Court Justices Were Confirmed Within 45 Days
There’s ample precedent for a quick confirmation.
There are 45 days until the November 3rd presidential election, and there’s ample precedent for an expedited confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice in such a timeframe following a vacancy.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg died on Friday, setting up a possible contentious confirmation process to fill her seat. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is pledging that a tentative Trump administration nominee for the position will receive a vote on the Senate floor, despite outrage and indignation on the part of progressives falsely maintaining that McConnell is breaking precedent he set by refusing to confirm Merrick Garland. President Obama tried to get Garland confirmed when the opposing party controlled the Senate, a divided government that does not exist in 2020.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg herself was formally nominated by President Clinton on June 22nd, 1993. Her confirmation process began on July 20th, and she was confirmed on August 3rd, with a total of 42 days elapsing between her nomination and confirmation.
John Paul Stevens’ nomination was advanced and confirmed in a speedy 19 days, and Sandra Day O’Connor was confirmed in 1981 in a total of 33 days.
In fact, every single Supreme Court nomination of the past 45 years was nominated and voted upon within a shorter duration of the time remaining in Donald Trump’s first presidential term.
Yes, Trump has time to nominate and get his nominee confirmed to the Supreme Court. EVERY SINGLE VOTE ON A #SCOTUS NOMINEE OF THE LAST 45 YEARS was voted on in less time than what Trump has between now and the end of his current term. pic.twitter.com/og5aOZsiw1
— Matt Batzel (@MattBatzel) September 19, 2020
There’s actually wide precedent for nominating and confirming a Supreme Court justice within the confines of President Trump’s first term, and Democrats are being untruthful or erroneous to suggest otherwise.
McConnell is beginning initial work to advance confirmation hearings, with potential liberal Republicans such as Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski presenting themselves as possible holdouts. It is possible to approve a judge with 50 votes in the Senate and a Vice Presidential tiebreaker.
News4 days ago
Southern Baptist Convention to Rename Itself In Nod to Black Lives Matter Movement
Hollywood4 days ago
Michelle Obama’s Influence Over Netflix Led to Release of Pro-Pedo Movie ‘Cuties’
Hollywood4 days ago
#CancelNetflix: Netflix Stock Tanking As Viewers Unsubscribe Over “Cuties”
Fake News Media3 days ago
SHAMEFUL: Fox News Censors Newt Gingrich for Correctly Stating George Soros’ Role in Fomenting BLM Terror
Crime3 days ago
Omaha Business Owner Who Killed BLM Rioter in Self-Defense is Hit with Multiple Felony Charges
Videos3 days ago
WATCH: Darren Beattie Explains the Globalist ‘Color Revolution’ to Oust President Trump on Tucker Carlson
Fake News Media4 days ago
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE: German-Owned ‘Scientific American’ Magazine Endorses Joe Biden
States3 days ago
Carolina Panthers Spanish-Language Broadcaster Resigns After Team Seeks to Censor His Support of Donald Trump