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

[jc456]

Why aren't the Republicans demanding transparency of process from the White House? Why don't they call for the WH to allow all the witnesses the Peoples House have subpoenaed to testify under oath?

Why should Republicans participate in the circus? It would only give legitimacy to the sham.

Because there are no Republicans left. Just the Trumpublicans, those who approve of the illegal "Weapons for Dirt" extortion plot.

There was no "weapons for dirt extortion plot", and repeatedly insisting there was does not make it so. It only makes you look more ridiculous.

If there was no plot to extort a very public announcement of investigations into the DNC Server and the Biden's, why not let all the Three Amigos and their leader, Rudy, honor the subpoena's and testify under oath before Congress to clear the air?

why are the biden's fighting what the president did then? Let's use your own statement, what are they hiding?

 

[iceberg]

So put Tramp, Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. under oath in the impeachment trials.

After all tramp started the ball rolling. Also release all the documents.

sorry - they were on hillarys server and no one cared then when all the documentation was suddenly gone.

don't pretend to care now.

 

[iceberg]

but tell you what, you first tell me how heresay evidence applies in this case and then i'll go ahead and google this for you.

Tell us what "hearsay" in this case that ''allegedly does not apply'' from either of the two witnesses that testified yesterday, and then we can argue and debate it.

These generalizations do neither of us any good.

As example, it's hearsay that Trump held back the money until Velensky would investigate the Bidens and a debunked conspiracy theory created by Manafort to protect the Russians with the crowdstrike server garbage....

the money was held back.... no one heard the president say to do such directly, other than Mulveney and his assistant at the OMB, who held back the money and said it was the president who ordered it... everyone else but these two, were told it was being held back by the president, but did not hear the president say it, know the money was held back, and the only person who could direct mulveney to hold back the money IS THE PRESIDENT....

and the witnesses testifying KNOW the money WAS held back because the Ukrainians never received the aid.... until two days after the whistleblower report was made known to Congress....

just because these two did not hear the president say such, on holding back the money and the OMB Director is the only one that got that direction from the President, does not in any way negate the fact that the president and only the president, COULD put a hold on it....

the witnesses testimony confirms that the Ukrainians NEVER GOT the aid to fight off the Russians invading, as passed by congress the previous February....

yet you never answered the legal question of HOW "hearsay" evidence is valid in this instance. you went off blithering out some other non-related shit that you like to give me grief for doing.

the D's said "heresay is good - better than actual!" - now back that statement up of HOW is it "better" and legally permissible or simply say it was a stupid statement on their part.

your call but i'm not chasing your rabbits.

hearsay in this case is - he did NOT see this directly, he "heard" about it. sorry that was difficult for you to grasp.

 

[jc456]

So put Tramp, Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. under oath in the impeachment trials.

After all tramp started the ball rolling. Also release all the documents.

sorry - they were on hillarys server and no one cared then when all the documentation was suddenly gone.

don't pretend to care now.

but hypocrisy is what she likes.

 

[iceberg]

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

great. do you really want a law of the land that passes out judgements on heresay?

well outside of it pertaining to trump cause that's where it will certainly go.

They want anything that will help them tarnish or get rid of Trump. The thought is not how things will play out further down the line. It is all about the current moment.

The fact is that use hearsay now. Next year it will be use it to get rid of someone else. Then it will be used again and again until no one can stay in office.

You guys need a room?

Also, you're ignoring a few facts.

But that's pretty much how you kids rationalize shit.

we rationalize it by discussing it - please feel free to join in and simply say how hearsay is valid in this instance. so far all you've done is mock others and fling insults but have yet to simply say how it's valid here.

guess thats how YOU rationalize it.

 

[jc456]

but tell you what, you first tell me how heresay evidence applies in this case and then i'll go ahead and google this for you.

Tell us what "hearsay" in this case that ''allegedly does not apply'' from either of the two witnesses that testified yesterday, and then we can argue and debate it.

These generalizations do neither of us any good.

As example, it's hearsay that Trump held back the money until Velensky would investigate the Bidens and a debunked conspiracy theory created by Manafort to protect the Russians with the crowdstrike server garbage....

the money was held back.... no one heard the president say to do such directly, other than Mulveney and his assistant at the OMB, who held back the money and said it was the president who ordered it... everyone else but these two, were told it was being held back by the president, but did not hear the president say it, know the money was held back, and the only person who could direct mulveney to hold back the money IS THE PRESIDENT....

and the witnesses testifying KNOW the money WAS held back because the Ukrainians never received the aid.... until two days after the whistleblower report was made known to Congress....

just because these two did not hear the president say such, on holding back the money and the OMB Director is the only one that got that direction from the President, does not in any way negate the fact that the president and only the president, COULD put a hold on it....

the witnesses testimony confirms that the Ukrainians NEVER GOT the aid to fight off the Russians invading, as passed by congress the previous February....

yet you never answered the legal question of HOW "hearsay" evidence is valid in this instance. you went off blithering out some other non-related shit that you like to give me grief for doing.

the D's said "heresay is good - better than actual!" - now back that statement up of HOW is it "better" and legally permissible or simply say it was a stupid statement on their part.

your call but i'm not chasing your rabbits.

hearsay in this case is - he did NOT see this directly, he "heard" about it. sorry that was difficult for you to grasp.

well I've heard about it, now I'm a witness? too fking funny.

 

[iceberg]

So put Tramp, Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. under oath in the impeachment trials.

After all tramp started the ball rolling. Also release all the documents.

sorry - they were on hillarys server and no one cared then when all the documentation was suddenly gone.

don't pretend to care now.

but hypocrisy is what she likes.

yea, several pages ago it was HOW COME YOU WON'T ALLOW PEOPLE TO BE SUBPOENA'D AND GET THIS DONE - PROVIDE YOUR DOCUMENTATION!!!!

yet she defends hillary deleting requested evidence ad nausea. typical projection.

 

[S.J.]

Why aren't the Republicans demanding transparency of process from the White House? Why don't they call for the WH to allow all the witnesses the Peoples House have subpoenaed to testify under oath?

Why should Republicans participate in the circus? It would only give legitimacy to the sham.

Because there are no Republicans left. Just the Trumpublicans, those who approve of the illegal "Weapons for Dirt" extortion plot.

There was no "weapons for dirt extortion plot", and repeatedly insisting there was does not make it so. It only makes you look more ridiculous.

If there was no plot to extort a very public announcement of investigations into the DNC Server and the Biden's, why not let all the Three Amigos and their leader, Rudy, honor the subpoena's and testify under oath before Congress to clear the air?

Why won't Schiff allow the Republicans to subpoena Hunter Biden? Cooperation works both ways.

 

[2aguy]

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?”​

​

Silly you......of course Hear Say evidence is better than actual facts....facts are the truth, they can't be changed or manipulated......"Hear Say?" Now that you can work with....you can just make that shit up to whatever you need to persecute your victim......you really need to learn about this stuff....

 

[BlindBoo]

Why aren't the Republicans demanding transparency of process from the White House? Why don't they call for the WH to allow all the witnesses the Peoples House have subpoenaed to testify under oath?

Why should Republicans participate in the circus? It would only give legitimacy to the sham.

Because there are no Republicans left. Just the Trumpublicans, those who approve of the illegal "Weapons for Dirt" extortion plot.

There was no "weapons for dirt extortion plot", and repeatedly insisting there was does not make it so. It only makes you look more ridiculous.

If there was no plot to extort a very public announcement of investigations into the DNC Server and the Biden's, why not let all the Three Amigos and their leader, Rudy, honor the subpoena's and testify under oath before Congress to clear the air?

Why won't Schiff allow the Republicans to subpoena Hunter Biden? Cooperation works both ways.

Other than being a pawn used in Trumpybears "Weapons for Dirt" plot, what role did he play in the scheme to extract a public announcement of the "Investigations" by the Ukrainians?

 

[jc456]

Why aren't the Republicans demanding transparency of process from the White House? Why don't they call for the WH to allow all the witnesses the Peoples House have subpoenaed to testify under oath?

Why should Republicans participate in the circus? It would only give legitimacy to the sham.

Because there are no Republicans left. Just the Trumpublicans, those who approve of the illegal "Weapons for Dirt" extortion plot.

There was no "weapons for dirt extortion plot", and repeatedly insisting there was does not make it so. It only makes you look more ridiculous.

If there was no plot to extort a very public announcement of investigations into the DNC Server and the Biden's, why not let all the Three Amigos and their leader, Rudy, honor the subpoena's and testify under oath before Congress to clear the air?

Why won't Schiff allow the Republicans to subpoena Hunter Biden? Cooperation works both ways.

cause he doesn't have to. the leftist hypocrites came out in droves in this one. This thread is full of them. like ants/ fleas, your choice, but they're proud of their hypocrisy. they want us dead. they'd prefer we just shut up and listen to them.

 

[jc456]

Why aren't the Republicans demanding transparency of process from the White House? Why don't they call for the WH to allow all the witnesses the Peoples House have subpoenaed to testify under oath?

Why should Republicans participate in the circus? It would only give legitimacy to the sham.

Because there are no Republicans left. Just the Trumpublicans, those who approve of the illegal "Weapons for Dirt" extortion plot.

There was no "weapons for dirt extortion plot", and repeatedly insisting there was does not make it so. It only makes you look more ridiculous.

If there was no plot to extort a very public announcement of investigations into the DNC Server and the Biden's, why not let all the Three Amigos and their leader, Rudy, honor the subpoena's and testify under oath before Congress to clear the air?

Why won't Schiff allow the Republicans to subpoena Hunter Biden? Cooperation works both ways.

Other than being a pawn used in Trumpybears "Weapons for Dirt" plot, what role did he play in the scheme to extract a public announcement of the "Investigations" by the Ukrainians?

where was weapons for dirt at? dude, if you can't explain it, you're just a fksquat.

 

[S.J.]

Why aren't the Republicans demanding transparency of process from the White House? Why don't they call for the WH to allow all the witnesses the Peoples House have subpoenaed to testify under oath?

Why should Republicans participate in the circus? It would only give legitimacy to the sham.

Because there are no Republicans left. Just the Trumpublicans, those who approve of the illegal "Weapons for Dirt" extortion plot.

There was no "weapons for dirt extortion plot", and repeatedly insisting there was does not make it so. It only makes you look more ridiculous.

If there was no plot to extort a very public announcement of investigations into the DNC Server and the Biden's, why not let all the Three Amigos and their leader, Rudy, honor the subpoena's and testify under oath before Congress to clear the air?

Why won't Schiff allow the Republicans to subpoena Hunter Biden? Cooperation works both ways.

Other than being a pawn used in Trumpybears "Weapons for Dirt" plot, what role did he play in the scheme to extract a public announcement of the "Investigations" by the Ukrainians?

Do you have anything other than rhetorical questions? Schiff won't allow ANY witnesses to be called that might interfere with the lynching.

 

[OldLady]

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.

i'm supposed to just trust him at his word? I see no reason why you shouldn't. He made his "opinions" known in his opening statement, made no bones about his "bias." Unless you had decided beforehand that anything said against the President is hogwash you are going to ignore.

i don't trust trump at his word without checking to make sure he's not just "bragging" again and i certainly won't take someone with an anti-trump history at their word trump did something wrong.

i'm willing to listen to people who are not changing their stories as they go and have actually seen said behavior. anything else is simply put, bullshit.

I've asked other posters but gotten no reply, so I'll try you: have you got a link to Taylor being anti-Trump?

his entire opening statement.

? I heard nothing like that.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Pretty dumb statement....

I can't wait for Trump to come testify under oath with his direct evidence and totally blow those Dems out of the water.....

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

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.

i'm supposed to just trust him at his word? I see no reason why you shouldn't. He made his "opinions" known in his opening statement, made no bones about his "bias." Unless you had decided beforehand that anything said against the President is hogwash you are going to ignore.

i don't trust trump at his word without checking to make sure he's not just "bragging" again and i certainly won't take someone with an anti-trump history at their word trump did something wrong.

i'm willing to listen to people who are not changing their stories as they go and have actually seen said behavior. anything else is simply put, bullshit.

I've asked other posters but gotten no reply, so I'll try you: have you got a link to Taylor being anti-Trump?

his entire opening statement.

? I heard nothing like that.

Speaking factually can be seen as anti-Trump...especially if you use complete sentences and big words....very frightening to a Trumper

 

[Care4all]

but tell you what, you first tell me how heresay evidence applies in this case and then i'll go ahead and google this for you.

Tell us what "hearsay" in this case that ''allegedly does not apply'' from either of the two witnesses that testified yesterday, and then we can argue and debate it.

These generalizations do neither of us any good.

As example, it's hearsay that Trump held back the money until Velensky would investigate the Bidens and a debunked conspiracy theory created by Manafort to protect the Russians with the crowdstrike server garbage....

the money was held back.... no one heard the president say to do such directly, other than Mulveney and his assistant at the OMB, who held back the money and said it was the president who ordered it... everyone else but these two, were told it was being held back by the president, but did not hear the president say it, know the money was held back, and the only person who could direct mulveney to hold back the money IS THE PRESIDENT....

and the witnesses testifying KNOW the money WAS held back because the Ukrainians never received the aid.... until two days after the whistleblower report was made known to Congress....

just because these two did not hear the president say such, on holding back the money and the OMB Director is the only one that got that direction from the President, does not in any way negate the fact that the president and only the president, COULD put a hold on it....

the witnesses testimony confirms that the Ukrainians NEVER GOT the aid to fight off the Russians invading, as passed by congress the previous February....

yet you never answered the legal question of HOW "hearsay" evidence is valid in this instance. you went off blithering out some other non-related shit that you like to give me grief for doing.

the D's said "heresay is good - better than actual!" - now back that statement up of HOW is it "better" and legally permissible or simply say it was a stupid statement on their part.

your call but i'm not chasing your rabbits.

hearsay in this case is - he did NOT see this directly, he "heard" about it. sorry that was difficult for you to grasp.

FIRST, this is NOT a trial, it is an investigation...

i don't think it is better than interviewing Mulveney or Pompeo or the VP or Bolton under oath....

we'd rather have these people testifying, but they are being held back by the president.

Second hand witnesses in investigations, lead to first hand witnesses and evidence... they help show the full picture from all people affected... they are not better than first hand, they support first hand...

as example, Mulveney was told to hold back the money till Trump got his and Giuliani's ''investigations''

if the money was never held back by Mulveney, then these witnesses yesterday, who had first hand knowledge from the Ukranians that the money was not being held back and they got it, then Mulveney stating such, would be debunked.

But the money was being held back, they knew this first hand.... and testified to such. Mulveney stating such to them, can not be debunked by them... because the aid money WAS being withheld.

 

[jc456]

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.

i'm supposed to just trust him at his word? I see no reason why you shouldn't. He made his "opinions" known in his opening statement, made no bones about his "bias." Unless you had decided beforehand that anything said against the President is hogwash you are going to ignore.

i don't trust trump at his word without checking to make sure he's not just "bragging" again and i certainly won't take someone with an anti-trump history at their word trump did something wrong.

i'm willing to listen to people who are not changing their stories as they go and have actually seen said behavior. anything else is simply put, bullshit.

I've asked other posters but gotten no reply, so I'll try you: have you got a link to Taylor being anti-Trump?

his entire opening statement.

? I heard nothing like that.

then you didn't listen.

 

[jc456]

i'm supposed to just trust him at his word? I see no reason why you shouldn't. He made his "opinions" known in his opening statement, made no bones about his "bias." Unless you had decided beforehand that anything said against the President is hogwash you are going to ignore.

i don't trust trump at his word without checking to make sure he's not just "bragging" again and i certainly won't take someone with an anti-trump history at their word trump did something wrong.

i'm willing to listen to people who are not changing their stories as they go and have actually seen said behavior. anything else is simply put, bullshit.

I've asked other posters but gotten no reply, so I'll try you: have you got a link to Taylor being anti-Trump?

his entire opening statement.

? I heard nothing like that.

Speaking factually can be seen as anti-Trump...especially if you use complete sentences and big words....very frightening to a Trumper

name a big word that I'm frightened of? I know you hate facts.

 

[jc456]

Pretty dumb statement....

I can't wait for Trump to come testify under oath with his direct evidence and totally blow those Dems out of the water.....

Let's hear hunter's testimony, how about the supposed whistleblower's? hahahaahahhaha fk off punk. President owes you a secure country without corruption. Biden and obammmy threaten our country and are corrupt. I say that with evidence available. I'm still waiting on yours.