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

[hadit]

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.

And that post is loaded with "feelz", as shown by other posters, so I won't reinvent the wheel on that one.

 

[depotoo]

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.

Once again, you ignore what they said was all hearsay. Nothing more than a group of high school students upset with what another group was doing so they start bullying and lying, gossiping to try to get their way. That you don’t see that absolutely amazes me.

 

[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.

Once again, you ignore what they said was all hearsay. Nothing more than a group of high school students upset with what another group was doing so they start bullying and lying, gossiping to try to get their way. That you don’t see that absolutely amazes me.

hate can make you do a lot of strange things. like i said, i get the trump hate. what i don't get is how you can allow 1 person to alter how you see what is right and wrong in the world itself just to scratch that "itch".

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It's always best to hear fifth hand accounts.

 

[MAGAman]

It's always best to hear fifth hand accounts.

Unless 6th hand is available.

 

[iceberg]

It's always best to hear fifth hand accounts.

Unless 6th hand is available.

5th hand account, 6th hand account, whatever it takes.

 

[william the wie]

This impeachment is backfiring big time.

 

[The Original Tree]

Clown Show. Actually heard some Democrats are leaving the party after this, including politicians who want to re-register as Independents or Republicans.

 

[jknowgood]

Well then it's settled, Michelle Obama is a transvestite.

 

[Desperado]

When they have no evidence, and hearsay is all they have, what do you expect the demoncrats to say.

 

[Fueri]

If they had a solid case they woulrnt need the twistings of logic we're seeing.

Call a bunch of witnesses who didnt like Trumos policies to regurgitate water coler chit chat

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.

These people understand the law. There are exceptions where hearsay is admissable in a court, but they are defined. If this fit such an exception they would be explaining that, citing the exception in no uncertain terms and these nebulous references to how in 'other cases' it has been used would be utterly unnecessary.

They're flailing big-time here. Calling a pile of witnesses to relate their hearsay and opinions, and their opinions of others' opinions, and then spinning that to say hearsay is acceptable in some 'exceptions' (just not this one, legally speaking). That's downright embarrassing.

Propaganda writ large is what this is shaping up to be.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Not when you have hearsay, because its better. I'm not sure Quigley knows the definition of hearsay'.


hear·say
/ˈhirˌsā/

noun
noun: hearsay
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.


Ryan Saavedra on Twitter

 

[Crepitus]

Whether we need it or not, we've got plenty.

 

[BluesLegend]

Dem's have lost their damn minds its hilarious.

 

[iceberg]

If they had a solid case they woulrnt need the twistings of logic we're seeing.

Call a bunch of witnesses who didnt like Trumos policies to regurgitate water coler chit chat

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.

These people understand the law. There are exceptions where hearsay is admissable in a court, but they are defined. If this fit such an exception they would be explaining that, citing the exception in no uncertain terms and these nebulous references to how in 'other cases' it has been used would be utterly unnecessary.

They're flailing big-time here. Calling a pile of witnesses to relate their hearsay and opinions, and their opinions of others' opinions, and then spinning that to say hearsay is acceptable in some 'exceptions' (just not this one, legally speaking). That's downright embarrassing.

Propaganda writ large is what this is shaping up to be.

and that is my point. if you're going to say exceptions are allowed, define how and the legal usage of it in the past and how it applies here. simply saying HEARSAY IS ALLOWED BY EXCEPTION doesn't do anything but feed your base bullshit.

the people here defending this are not interested in justice, just getting rid of trump by "any means necessary" which is a dangerous game to play cause it does come back in a "hold my beer" outdo you move.

 

[progressive hunter]

Whether we need it or not, we've got plenty.

if it exists the dems sure are hiding it pretty good, cause I havent seen any,,

 

[Maxdeath]

Whether we need it or not, we've got plenty.

Got to hand it to you when you are right you are right. The Dems have plenty of hearsay.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Whether we need it or not, we've got plenty.

Did you ignore the link a Democratic Rep stated they don't need evidence they have hearsay.

 

[kyzr]

If the dems say hearsay is more reliable (CNN), then why is it generally inadmissible? Hearsay - Wikipedia

There is "double-hearsay" in the wiki article. The democrats are trying to use "Quadruple-hearsay" as truth?!

Ken Starr said it best, there is no evidence of a crime, let alone an impeachable crime.

 

[wamose]

Hearsay, schmearsay. This is all about inventing a reason for impeachment. Now this Turner dude allegedly comes up with a new phone call yesterday. That's predictable based on the MO of this witch hunt. The bad thing is the precedent this sets for every future House impeaching every future President of a different party just because they have a majority. Imagine the never ending chaos something like that will cause. The fact that there is nothing close to a crime here doesn't seem to bother Democrats. They seem to relish this BS. And when they chirp about their constitutional duty, it's obvious they either don't know shit about the constitution or they don't give a shit about it.