A Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee delivered a stunning lesson to other members of the committee during the first public impeachment-investigation hearing on Wednesday.
It concerned the standard for evidence or testimony.
Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., said hearsay evidence is better than direct evidence.
"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," Quigley claimed.
Comment: The above statement only serves to remind the American public that lies are better than direct evidence, or truth.
Blacks Law Dictionary (4th Edition) definition of Hearsay:
HEARSAY. Evidence not proceeding from the personal knowledge of the witness, but from the mere repetition of what he has heard others say. That which does not derive its value solely from the credit of the witness, but rests mainly on the veracity and competency of other persons. The very nature of the evidence shows its weakness, and it is admitted only in specified cases from necessity. State v. Ah Lee, 18 Or. 540, 23 P. 424, 425. Young v. Stewart, 191 N.C. 297, 131 S.E. 735, 737.
It is second-hand evidence, as distinguished from original evidence; it is the repetition at second-hand of what would be original evidence if given by the person who originally made the statement. Literally, it is what the witness says he heard another person say. Stockton v. Williams, 1 Doug., Mich., 546, 570 (citing 1 Starkie, Ev. 229). Evidence, oral or written, is hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or in part on the competency and credibility of a person other than the witness. State v. Kluttz, 206 N.C. 726, 804, 175 S.E. 81. Hearsay is a statement made by a person not called as a witness, received in evidence on the trial. People v. Kraft, 36 N.Y.S. 1034, 1035, 91 Hun, 474. The term is sometimes used synonymously with "report", State v. Vettere, 76 Mont 574, 248 P. 179, 183; and with "rumor"
"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."
Comment: It doesn't appear that any of the legal exceptions to the rule of hearsay apply in this instance.
The Daily Caller reported Quigley made the statement while questioning Deputy Asst. Secretary of State George Kent and acting Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor.
When a Republican member asked, "Will the gentleman yield, because none of those exceptions would apply to this testimony," the chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., closed down the comment immediately.
Comment: The Republican member has a point. Ambassadors Sonland and Volker could be called as witnesses, sworn in and made available for cross-examination.
It was "not the time" for that discussion, he ordered.
Comment: The actual statement is "It's not the time for colloquy." The implication being that the Democrats don't want the exceptions to the rule of hearsay to be discussed to confirm whether or not they applied in this matter.
Schiff claimed for more than two years, while special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation was going on into Democratic claims that the 2016 Trump campaign colluded with Russia, that he had evidence of Trump's guilt.
But Mueller concluded there was no collusion.
Comment: Perhaps Schiff's evidence against Trump was hearsay!
Donald Trump Jr. lost no time in responding on Twitter to Quigley's comment.
"Can you believe this insanity? 'Heresay can be much better evidence than DIRECT EVIDENCE' according to Democrat Mike Quigley. Are you fricken kidding me? 3rd and 4th party info better than hearing it yourself?'
One Twitter user posted a sign saying: "Remove Convict. Incarcerate."
Another said, "The Democrats have officially lost this impeachment sham and are now down to outright lying and asking hypothetical questions."
HEIGHT- NAY, Orbital Excape Velocity of absurdity!R.C.