Dork Democrat Says During Hearing That Hearsay Is Better Than Direct Evidence

[mudwhistle]

These asshole Democrats are showing us how insane they are every day.

Democrat During Impeachment Hearing: ‘Hearsay Can Be Much Better Evidence Than Direct’
Democrat During Impeachment Hearing: ‘Hearsay Can Be Much Better Evidence Than Direct’

Democrat Rep. Mike Quigley (IL) faced intense backlash on Wednesday afternoon after claiming during Democrats’ impeachment inquiry hearing that “hearsay” can be “much better evidence than direct” evidence.

In a rambling statement, Quigley said, “And, if gets to closed primer on hearsay, 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 continued, “Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct … and it’s certainly valid in this instance.”

Donald Trump Jr. immediately turned his sights on Quigley, hammering the congressman in a series of tweeted.

“Can you believe this insanity? ‘Heresay can be much better evidence than DIRECT EVIDENCE’ according to Democrat Mike Quigley,” Trump tweeted. “Are you fricken kidding me? 3rd and 4th party info better than hearing it yourself?”​

​

 

[iceberg]

and there will be people who come in here to defend this idiocy and then when you call them an idiot, claim you are a "trumpette" or something else similar.

how this proceeded beyond that point is astounding. but we simply can't recreate laws and practices to get rid of ONE person because now this will just open up a lot of it used back in return, as it's now "acceptable" to get rid of people you don't happen to like.

so far we have:
she broke the law but didn't mean to - excused by the left and the now say she did nothing wrong.
trump broke the law but there is no one officially saying he did but the lack of saying he didn't was enough.

how come he can't just say "well i didn't mean to" and we're all good? "cause this is different" doesn't work anymore. details on HOW it's different are needed and they need to be rooted in fact, not emotional outbursts and insults.

and now heresay is perfectly fine in courts or hearings? well hell now i'm confused cause so many on "the left" tell me by the hour this is NOT A TRIAL!!! yet, here we are talking about how the courts allow this - yet he didn't name a single precedence of when it was allowed or context of why it was.

 

[MAGAman]

They are pretty desperate....

 

[JoeMoma]

It's like an episode of Three's Company. Janet Over hears Jack and Chrissy making sounds in the kitchen that sound to her like they are having sex. Actually Jack and Chrissy were simply eating a new dish that Jack cooked and they were moaning, ooohing and aaahing over how good it tasted. Janet acts weird the whole episode because she is against here roommates becoming a couple, which they never did in the first place.

So one guy heard from another guy who heard from another guy that Trump was blackmailing the Ukrainian President......Biden, Biden.... dirt.

 

[mudwhistle]

and there will be people who come in here to defend this idiocy and then when you call them an idiot, claim you are a "trumpette" or something else similar.

how this proceeded beyond that point is astounding. but we simply can't recreate laws and practices to get rid of ONE person because now this will just open up a lot of it used back in return, as it's now "acceptable" to get rid of people you don't happen to like.

so far we have:
she broke the law but didn't mean to - excused by the left and the now say she did nothing wrong.
trump broke the law but there is no one officially saying he did but the lack of saying he didn't was enough.

and now heresay is perfectly fine in courts or hearings? well hell now i'm confused cause so many on "the left" tell me by the hour this is NOT A TRIAL!!! yet, here we are talking about how the courts allow this - yet he didn't name a single precedence of when it was allowed or context of why it was.

This isn't the truth.....it's THEIR truth.

The truth to Democrats and the media is what they want it to be.....not what it is.

 

[iceberg]

and there will be people who come in here to defend this idiocy and then when you call them an idiot, claim you are a "trumpette" or something else similar.

how this proceeded beyond that point is astounding. but we simply can't recreate laws and practices to get rid of ONE person because now this will just open up a lot of it used back in return, as it's now "acceptable" to get rid of people you don't happen to like.

so far we have:
she broke the law but didn't mean to - excused by the left and the now say she did nothing wrong.
trump broke the law but there is no one officially saying he did but the lack of saying he didn't was enough.

and now heresay is perfectly fine in courts or hearings? well hell now i'm confused cause so many on "the left" tell me by the hour this is NOT A TRIAL!!! yet, here we are talking about how the courts allow this - yet he didn't name a single precedence of when it was allowed or context of why it was.

This isn't the truth.....it's THEIR truth.

The truth to Democrats and the media is what they want it to be.....not what it is.

yea, and when i push back against their version of it, suddenly i support the person they are attacking 100%. truth be told, it has NOTHING to do with trump but what we as a society are allowing to happen out of "Feelz".

 

[mudwhistle]

It's like an episode of Three's Company. Janet Over hears Jack and Chrissy making sounds in the kitchen that sound to her like they are having sex. Actually Jack and Chrissy were simply eating a new dish that Jack cooked and they were moaning, ooohing and aaahing over how good it tasted. Janet acts weird the whole episode because she is against here roommates becoming a couple, which they never did in the first place.

So one guy heard from another guy who heard from another guy that Trump was blackmailing the Ukrainian President......Biden, Biden.... dirt.

I think it would help if the Democrats decided which crime they're going to accuse Trump of before they begin any impeachment.

But now they're just floating suggestions on which crimes sound plausible.....hoping something will resonate.

 

[mudwhistle]

and there will be people who come in here to defend this idiocy and then when you call them an idiot, claim you are a "trumpette" or something else similar.

how this proceeded beyond that point is astounding. but we simply can't recreate laws and practices to get rid of ONE person because now this will just open up a lot of it used back in return, as it's now "acceptable" to get rid of people you don't happen to like.

so far we have:
she broke the law but didn't mean to - excused by the left and the now say she did nothing wrong.
trump broke the law but there is no one officially saying he did but the lack of saying he didn't was enough.

and now heresay is perfectly fine in courts or hearings? well hell now i'm confused cause so many on "the left" tell me by the hour this is NOT A TRIAL!!! yet, here we are talking about how the courts allow this - yet he didn't name a single precedence of when it was allowed or context of why it was.

This isn't the truth.....it's THEIR truth.

The truth to Democrats and the media is what they want it to be.....not what it is.

yea, and when i push back against their version of it, suddenly i support the person they are attacking 100%. truth be told, it has NOTHING to do with trump but what we as a society are allowing to happen out of "Feelz".

If you notice......most of the coverage of Trump doesn't focus on what Trump did.....but how they feel about what they claim he did. They get really nasty when they describe all of these horrible things that Trump did. But in reality, they're just nipping at his heels and hoping it will cause a response.

 

[wamose]

Only a Democrat would try to sell a bag of shit and call it ice cream. James Carvelle was right. Democrats will believe anything as long as it comes from another Democrat. Dopes

 

[iceberg]

and there will be people who come in here to defend this idiocy and then when you call them an idiot, claim you are a "trumpette" or something else similar.

how this proceeded beyond that point is astounding. but we simply can't recreate laws and practices to get rid of ONE person because now this will just open up a lot of it used back in return, as it's now "acceptable" to get rid of people you don't happen to like.

so far we have:
she broke the law but didn't mean to - excused by the left and the now say she did nothing wrong.
trump broke the law but there is no one officially saying he did but the lack of saying he didn't was enough.

and now heresay is perfectly fine in courts or hearings? well hell now i'm confused cause so many on "the left" tell me by the hour this is NOT A TRIAL!!! yet, here we are talking about how the courts allow this - yet he didn't name a single precedence of when it was allowed or context of why it was.

This isn't the truth.....it's THEIR truth.

The truth to Democrats and the media is what they want it to be.....not what it is.

yea, and when i push back against their version of it, suddenly i support the person they are attacking 100%. truth be told, it has NOTHING to do with trump but what we as a society are allowing to happen out of "Feelz".

If you notice......most of the coverage of Trump doesn't focus on what Trump did.....but how they feel about what they claim he did. They get really nasty when they describe all of these horrible things that Trump did. But in reality, they're just nipping at his heels and hoping it will cause a response.

those tactics did work for awhile but people, as people and pop culture does, gets tired and moves onto the next pet rock, so to speak.

looking forward to moving on one day.

 

[Rustic]

These asshole Democrats are showing us how insane they are every day.

Democrat During Impeachment Hearing: ‘Hearsay Can Be Much Better Evidence Than Direct’
Democrat During Impeachment Hearing: ‘Hearsay Can Be Much Better Evidence Than Direct’

Democrat Rep. Mike Quigley (IL) faced intense backlash on Wednesday afternoon after claiming during Democrats’ impeachment inquiry hearing that “hearsay” can be “much better evidence than direct” evidence.

In a rambling statement, Quigley said, “And, if gets to closed primer on hearsay, 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 continued, “Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct … and it’s certainly valid in this instance.”

Donald Trump Jr. immediately turned his sights on Quigley, hammering the congressman in a series of tweeted.

“Can you believe this insanity? ‘Heresay can be much better evidence than DIRECT EVIDENCE’ according to Democrat Mike Quigley,” Trump tweeted. “Are you fricken kidding me? 3rd and 4th party info better than hearing it yourself?”​

​

Lol
... and still no Russian connection

 

[mudwhistle]

and there will be people who come in here to defend this idiocy and then when you call them an idiot, claim you are a "trumpette" or something else similar.

how this proceeded beyond that point is astounding. but we simply can't recreate laws and practices to get rid of ONE person because now this will just open up a lot of it used back in return, as it's now "acceptable" to get rid of people you don't happen to like.

so far we have:
she broke the law but didn't mean to - excused by the left and the now say she did nothing wrong.
trump broke the law but there is no one officially saying he did but the lack of saying he didn't was enough.

and now heresay is perfectly fine in courts or hearings? well hell now i'm confused cause so many on "the left" tell me by the hour this is NOT A TRIAL!!! yet, here we are talking about how the courts allow this - yet he didn't name a single precedence of when it was allowed or context of why it was.

This isn't the truth.....it's THEIR truth.

The truth to Democrats and the media is what they want it to be.....not what it is.

yea, and when i push back against their version of it, suddenly i support the person they are attacking 100%. truth be told, it has NOTHING to do with trump but what we as a society are allowing to happen out of "Feelz".

If you notice......most of the coverage of Trump doesn't focus on what Trump did.....but how they feel about what they claim he did. They get really nasty when they describe all of these horrible things that Trump did. But in reality, they're just nipping at his heels and hoping it will cause a response.

those tactics did work for awhile but people, as people and pop culture does, gets tired and moves onto the next pet rock, so to speak.

looking forward to moving on one day.

There's the rub.
Democrats are going to be pulling this crap constantly.
They dream up these hoaxes.....they blow up in their faces...and they move on to the next hoax....never paying a price for what is felony fraud.
Why?
Because they own the media.
The media saves their bacon and carries their water for them.
The media gives them more credit than they deserve and the media undermines anyone they feel is against them.
The media is the key.
The media and the Democrats are a threat to national security because they give away secrets and they undermine foreign policy. Nevermind their open border policies.

 

[iceberg]

and there will be people who come in here to defend this idiocy and then when you call them an idiot, claim you are a "trumpette" or something else similar.

how this proceeded beyond that point is astounding. but we simply can't recreate laws and practices to get rid of ONE person because now this will just open up a lot of it used back in return, as it's now "acceptable" to get rid of people you don't happen to like.

so far we have:
she broke the law but didn't mean to - excused by the left and the now say she did nothing wrong.
trump broke the law but there is no one officially saying he did but the lack of saying he didn't was enough.

and now heresay is perfectly fine in courts or hearings? well hell now i'm confused cause so many on "the left" tell me by the hour this is NOT A TRIAL!!! yet, here we are talking about how the courts allow this - yet he didn't name a single precedence of when it was allowed or context of why it was.

This isn't the truth.....it's THEIR truth.

The truth to Democrats and the media is what they want it to be.....not what it is.

yea, and when i push back against their version of it, suddenly i support the person they are attacking 100%. truth be told, it has NOTHING to do with trump but what we as a society are allowing to happen out of "Feelz".

If you notice......most of the coverage of Trump doesn't focus on what Trump did.....but how they feel about what they claim he did. They get really nasty when they describe all of these horrible things that Trump did. But in reality, they're just nipping at his heels and hoping it will cause a response.

those tactics did work for awhile but people, as people and pop culture does, gets tired and moves onto the next pet rock, so to speak.

looking forward to moving on one day.

There's the rub.
Democrats are going to be pulling this crap constantly.
They dream up these hoaxes.....they blow up in their faces...and they move on to the next hoax....never paying a price for what is felony fraud.
Why?
Because they own the media.
The media saves their bacon and carries their water for them.
The media gives them more credit than they deserve and the media undermines anyone they feel is against them.
The media is the key.
The media and the Democrats are a threat to national security because they give away secrets and they undermine foreign policy. Nevermind their open border policies.

they will pull it. and to a degree the right will recycle their tactics and they will of course, cry foul. when they do this, they don't seem to understand it merely opens up the tactics for others to do the same.

"but this is different" is their mantra for most of this crap because, in the end, they FEEL differently about it. that's fine. we're supposed to all feel differently about things in life. that's a human trait they don't seem to be able to handle.

the key is we still follow the media. for the longest time they were used as the basis of right and wrong / truth or a lie. the morphing they've done over the years has made a joke out of the journalism profession. it literally takes $3 a month to put up a blog site and go crazy with "news" and as long as you say what SOMEONE wants to hear or SOMEONE hates what you said, you'll have traffic. not credibility but traffic.

advertisers don't pay on credibility but hits. such a low % of views even result in a click thru it's become an art. they do it, people have responded out of their own for / against emotions on the topic. end result is $ to their bank so as long as they get that, it will continue. when we as a culture are tired of CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS IDIOT SAID XYZ???? it will fade. til then, we're stuck with it out of our own strange fascination with it.

 

[theHawk]

and there will be people who come in here to defend this idiocy and then when you call them an idiot, claim you are a "trumpette" or something else similar.

how this proceeded beyond that point is astounding. but we simply can't recreate laws and practices to get rid of ONE person because now this will just open up a lot of it used back in return, as it's now "acceptable" to get rid of people you don't happen to like.

so far we have:
she broke the law but didn't mean to - excused by the left and the now say she did nothing wrong.
trump broke the law but there is no one officially saying he did but the lack of saying he didn't was enough.

how come he can't just say "well i didn't mean to" and we're all good? "cause this is different" doesn't work anymore. details on HOW it's different are needed and they need to be rooted in fact, not emotional outbursts and insults.

and now heresay is perfectly fine in courts or hearings? well hell now i'm confused cause so many on "the left" tell me by the hour this is NOT A TRIAL!!! yet, here we are talking about how the courts allow this - yet he didn't name a single precedence of when it was allowed or context of why it was.

It just proves that Democrats do not believe in justice. They believe in “social justice”, which really means the facts don’t matter, it’s how you feel that matters.

They don’t care about the lack of evidence or actual evidence in a case, they just want to feel justified in hating President Trump or any conservative. That means dismissing any evidence or logical conclusions and believing in lies and false narratives that promote their Agenda.

 

[OldLady]

and there will be people who come in here to defend this idiocy and then when you call them an idiot, claim you are a "trumpette" or something else similar.

how this proceeded beyond that point is astounding. but we simply can't recreate laws and practices to get rid of ONE person because now this will just open up a lot of it used back in return, as it's now "acceptable" to get rid of people you don't happen to like.

so far we have:
she broke the law but didn't mean to - excused by the left and the now say she did nothing wrong.
trump broke the law but there is no one officially saying he did but the lack of saying he didn't was enough.

and now heresay is perfectly fine in courts or hearings? well hell now i'm confused cause so many on "the left" tell me by the hour this is NOT A TRIAL!!! yet, here we are talking about how the courts allow this - yet he didn't name a single precedence of when it was allowed or context of why it was.

This isn't the truth.....it's THEIR truth.

The truth to Democrats and the media is what they want it to be.....not what it is.

yea, and when i push back against their version of it, suddenly i support the person they are attacking 100%. truth be told, it has NOTHING to do with trump but what we as a society are allowing to happen out of "Feelz".

There were no "feelz" in Taylor's testimony. He told us his story and he sure made it clear what Trump and his thugs were up to. He was in Kiev, he is a seasoned diplomat and he knows the lay of the land. He explained exactly what led him to his understanding of the "irregular" channel pressuring the new Ukrainian president to churn up muck on Biden. His intelligence officials had already told Trump that Crowdstrike was a conspiracy theory based on NO FACTS. Yet Trump wanted it "investigated" by Ukraine. Why? To make the Dems look dirty. It was a strawman.

There weren't any "feelz" yesterday, except the "bias" that Taylor and Kent made clear from the start--that they supported and agreed with the established US policy of helping Ukraine fight Russian aggression in their country and in supporting Ukraine's efforts to kick out the corrupt oligarchs so the money to that country would go where it belonged and the leaders who were elected would actual lead, not the rich guys behind the curtain.

Taylor and Kent didn't make any secret of that. Trump's disregard for that, witnessed by withholding approved military aid payments to Ukraine until Zelensky did him a political favor, is kinda disappointing in an American president. IMO.

 

[MAGAman]

There were no "feelz" in Taylor's testimony. He told us his story and he sure made it clear what Trump and his thugs were up to. He was in Kiev, he is a seasoned diplomat and he knows the lay of the land. He explained exactly what led him to his understanding of the "irregular" channel pressuring the new Ukrainian president to churn up muck on Biden. His intelligence officials had already told Trump that Crowdstrike was a conspiracy theory based on NO FACTS. Yet Trump wanted it "investigated" by Ukraine. Why? To make the Dems look dirty. It was a strawman.

There weren't any "feelz" yesterday, except the "bias" that Taylor and Kent made clear from the start--that they supported and agreed with the established US policy of helping Ukraine fight Russian aggression in their country and in supporting Ukraine's efforts to kick out the corrupt oligarchs so the money to that country would go where it belonged and the leaders who were elected would actual lead, not the rich guys behind the curtain.

Taylor and Kent didn't make any secret of that. Trump's disregard for that, witnessed by withholding approved military aid payments to Ukraine until Zelensky did him a political favor, is kinda disappointing in an American president. IMO.

No.

There was no favor. Fact confirmed by Zelensky

There was no pressure. Fact confirmed by Zelensky.

Taylor has never spoken to Trump. He is not a fact witness because he didn't witness anything.

Taylor did not tell his story. He talked about other people and how they felt.

The aid was delivered weeks in advance of the deadline in the authorizing legislation. Obama never delivered this same military aid in 8 years.
.

 

[BluesLegend]

Lets call the testimony what it truly is, office water cooler gossip. Butthurt Dem's want to remove a duly elected president from office using office water cooler gossip, pathetic.

 

[iceberg]

and there will be people who come in here to defend this idiocy and then when you call them an idiot, claim you are a "trumpette" or something else similar.

how this proceeded beyond that point is astounding. but we simply can't recreate laws and practices to get rid of ONE person because now this will just open up a lot of it used back in return, as it's now "acceptable" to get rid of people you don't happen to like.

so far we have:
she broke the law but didn't mean to - excused by the left and the now say she did nothing wrong.
trump broke the law but there is no one officially saying he did but the lack of saying he didn't was enough.

and now heresay is perfectly fine in courts or hearings? well hell now i'm confused cause so many on "the left" tell me by the hour this is NOT A TRIAL!!! yet, here we are talking about how the courts allow this - yet he didn't name a single precedence of when it was allowed or context of why it was.

This isn't the truth.....it's THEIR truth.

The truth to Democrats and the media is what they want it to be.....not what it is.

yea, and when i push back against their version of it, suddenly i support the person they are attacking 100%. truth be told, it has NOTHING to do with trump but what we as a society are allowing to happen out of "Feelz".

There were no "feelz" in Taylor's testimony. He told us his story and he sure made it clear what Trump and his thugs were up to. He was in Kiev, he is a seasoned diplomat and he knows the lay of the land. He explained exactly what led him to his understanding of the "irregular" channel pressuring the new Ukrainian president to churn up muck on Biden. His intelligence officials had already told Trump that Crowdstrike was a conspiracy theory based on NO FACTS. Yet Trump wanted it "investigated" by Ukraine. Why? To make the Dems look dirty. It was a strawman.

There weren't any "feelz" yesterday, except the "bias" that Taylor and Kent made clear from the start--that they supported and agreed with the established US policy of helping Ukraine fight Russian aggression in their country and in supporting Ukraine's efforts to kick out the corrupt oligarchs so the money to that country would go where it belonged and the leaders who were elected would actual lead, not the rich guys behind the curtain.

Taylor and Kent didn't make any secret of that. Trump's disregard for that, witnessed by withholding approved military aid payments to Ukraine until Zelensky did him a political favor, is kinda disappointing in an American president. IMO.

he told you what he HEARD FROM OTHERS they were up to.

they did not hear it directly. they then try to say "heresay evidence is valid" but didn't cite a single court case for precedence or how it could have been, so i'm supposed to just trust him at his word? not going to happen. cite your sources, provide a "link" or stop being stupid.

Hearsay in Criminal Cases
Hearsay is a statement by someone to a witness who, while testifying in court, repeats the statement. The statement is hearsay only if it is offered for the truth of its contents. In general, courts exclude hearsay evidence in trials, criminal or otherwise. The hearsay ban aims to prevent juries from considering secondhand information that hasn’t been subject to cross examination.

Hearsay Evidence - FindLaw
Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.

ok - so how does their "exception" apply? please do some homework and enlighten me as to which exceptions they are claiming and how they apply to this case. i see a huge STRETCH coming up in trying to correlate this but hey, have fun.

my main point is this, to me, has NOTHING to do with trump but my being 100% against these fly by night methods the left is using out of FEELZ to get rid of someone their FEELZ says they hate.

i would not approve of the right doing this to anyone on the left. this is where we are different. by a lot.

 

[BluesLegend]

If you notice......most of the coverage of Trump doesn't focus on what Trump did.....but how they feel about what they claim he did.

Bingo! And since they already hated the man before he did anything pretty much anything Trump does triggers them.

Fact: Strings and conditions are routinely tied to U.S. aid.

Fact: ALL presidents have used back channels to communicate with foreign leaders there is nothing 'irregular' about Trump doing this. FDR was famous for telling the State department to fuck off and going around them.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Hearsay is what you make it or want to make it. From the moment Trump was electors, the Democrats wanted Impeachment. Any means necessary to find or even manufacture a foul to fit into Impeachment.