Connect with us


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

The Democrats have lost their marbles.



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.

Trending: White House Submits to Fake Biden Transition After Left-Wing Terror Campaign Against GSA Chief

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.


Democrat Black Farmers Bill Would Give Away $8 Billion of Land Yearly in Reparations Program

South Africa-style land redistribution?



Democrat Senators are touting new legislation that would purchase national farmland and give it away to Black Americans for free.

Democrats Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Elizabeth Warren are sponsoring the the Justice for Black Farmers Act, which seems likely to be the most wide-ranging affirmative action program ever enacted if it’s signed into law. It’s not inaccurate to call the bill a reparations program.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The law establishes preferences for Black Americans within Department of Agriculture policy. Blacks would be granted free land purchased by the federal government, in total increments that appear to add up to $8 billion a year.

An undersecretary of a USDA “Equitable Land Access Service” would be entrusted with purchasing(using taxpayer funds) and redistributing land. The reparation bill appropriates for a massive 20,000 grants annually over ten years, adding up to a total redistribution package of $80 billion.

The under-secretary would be commissioned to “(1) purchase from willing sellers, at a price not greater than fair market value, available agricultural land in the United States; and (2) subject to section 205, convey grants of that land to eligible Black individuals at no cost to the eligible Black individuals.

If the bill redistributes 160 acres per grant, it would ultimately end up transferring 1.6% of the total land in the continental United States for free.

Democrats cite a decline in the numbers of black farmers since the 1920’s as an impetus for the bill, pointing out that there were 1 million black farmers in 1920 and 50,000 today. Such logic ignores that the number of American farmers broadly has declined sharply as the United States transitioned to an industrial economy, and that millions of Black Americans who worked under poor conditions as sharecroppers in the American South have long since moved to northern cities.

The bill is somewhat similar to South African racial land redistribution policies, which differ primarily in that they forcibly nationalized land owned by Afrikaner farmers and redistributed them to South African Blacks. South Africa’s land reforms in the name of “equity” have proven to generally be a failure, with novel farmers unable to utilize the land they’ve been gifted in a manner beneficial to society. South Africa has transitioned from a bountiful agricultural society known as the “bread basket of Africa” to a net food importer, with experts pointing to arbitrary land redistribution as a factor in doing so.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!