Rep. Mike Quigley defended the impeachment testimony of two witnesses by asserting that hearsay evidence is sometimes admitted into court.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent and acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor testified in the House’s impeachment proceedings into President Trump on Tuesday. Neither witness has had significant contact with Trump, and almost all of their testimony is based on the accounts of others shared with them.
"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," Quigley, a Democrat from Illinois, said to close his questioning of Kent and Taylor. "Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct, as we have learned in painful instances and it's certainly valid in this instance."
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
9 comments:
For a so-called "leader" to say that "countless" Americans have been convicted on hearsay evidence is evidence he is too stupid to collect the salary he commands.
They will lie and distort the truth to any length in their deranged objective to rid themselves of Trump.
It won't help them.
Trump is going to destroy the democrats. They know it, too, which is why they are scrambling to find SOMEONE who can tell us the sky is green, trillions of dollars can be found if we just look hard enough, and no one has to produce anything or work at all. We can have EVERYTHING and not do anything at all for it. But they have to be able to say it like they actually believe it.
Then, get past Trump in a debate.
I can't wait for THAT spectacle.
Keep cheering.
1984. How terrifyingly prescient Orwell was.
so he's a great gossiper....
Define and qualify "better".
The operative word here is CAN (be). The same argument can be made for a wet dream.
Democrats state they acting on the "Rule of Law". Hearsay is not the rule of law. Shows how stupid these Politians are. Some even have Law Degrees, which I question the validity of by these comments.
'
Quigley is a perfect example of how democrats think. Where are all you never Trumpers on this? Come on I want to see how you justify this bs.
Northwest Woodsman: Yes, under some conditions, hearsay information is important and admissible, however, for Marxist democrats, outright lies are part of their tool box and are more effective in convincing their low information constituents. Ever listen to man on the street interviews? They expose the stupidity, lack of education and lack of the ability to think critically and god help us, they can and do vote.
Hearsay is what you use for evidence when you have nothing else. If the democrats had any direct evidence, they would use it. Hearsay is just the democrats making stuff up again.
Post a Comment