Illinois Democrat Claims 'Hearsay Can Be Much Better Evidence Than Direct' Evidence
During Wednesday's public impeachment inquiry, Republicans rightfully reaffirmed the point that neither of the two witnesses, Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs George Kent or Ambassador William Taylor, have any firsthand knowledge of President Trump's phone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. In fact, neither man has ever spoken with or met President Trump.
In an attempt to counter that rather devastating and inconvenient fact for the Democrats, Illinois Democrat Congressman Mike Quigley offered a bizarre defense of Kent and Taylor's lack of direct knowledge of the pertinent details of the investigation.
"I guess to close, 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 said. "Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct, as we have learned in painful instances and it's certainly valid in this instance," he added.
Can you imagine? Democrats are so determined to impeach Trump they are willing to suggest that hearsay is better than direct evidence. It's not surprising however, that a Democrat would make such a statement, especially after the Kavanaugh hearings, when Democrats were so desperate for dirt, even the most farcical allegations made against the now-Supreme Court Justice were treated as serious allegations and uncorroborated testimony by an accuser whose own witnesses denied her story was accepted as fact.
Democrats have previously shown there is no low they won't stoop to in order to save a Supreme Court seat. When they are arguing that hearsay is more valid than actual evidence in the impeachment of a president, it's clear they are willing to return to those shameful depths without blinking an eye.