Hearsay Evidence Can Be Much Better???

[Lamb]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-can-be-much-better-than-direct-in-some-cases

Quigley, a Democrat from Illinois, said to close his questioning of Kent and Taylor. "Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct, as we have learned in painful instances and it's certainly valid in this instance."


Hearsay is rarely allowed in court. Does this guy not watch Judge Judy??? LOL

 

[Josiah]

Does truth matter here?

Or is this just about an intense, personal HATRED of Trump and ANGER because Queen Hilary lost the election?

Or is this just an attempt to get all the attention OFF the "do nothing" Democrat controlled House and their unwillingness/inability to get ANYTHING done ("Don't see how horrible we are, look at Trump instead!") ...and an attempt to get the attention OFF the wackos running for the nomination of their party?

 

[tango]

I heard that Donald Trump is a saint. Surely that's enough evidence to acquit him of all charges, right?

 

[RichWh1]

Whether or not you are aware hearsay evidence is admissible in a court of law

 

[vince284]

Whether or not you are aware hearsay evidence is admissible in a court of law

OP: Hearsay Evidence can be much better???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law

Even though hearsay can be used in a court of law, it comes with exemptions. Hearsay is not admissible on it's own. So that in itself can't make hearsay much better than direct evidence.

 

[Lamb]

Whether or not you are aware hearsay evidence is admissible in a court of law

At which point is hearsay BETTER than direct evidence? That's what the democrat politician is trying to convince everyone to believe with his statement.

 

[tango]

At which point is hearsay BETTER than direct evidence? That's what the democrat politician is trying to convince everyone to believe with his statement.

Because everybody knows Trump is guilty of, well, everything he is accused of and everything that's wrong in the world. Even the stuff that hasn't happened yet is his fault. Everybody knows that. So when people talk about it and figure out how guilty he is, it must be admissible as evidence because it's so obvious. Obviously.

 

[RichWh1]

OP: Hearsay Evidence can be much better???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law

Even though hearsay can be used in a court of law, it comes with exemptions. Hearsay is not admissible on it's own. So that in itself can't make hearsay much better than direct evidence.

It is admissible if it can be corroborated. That’s how we obtain the facts. Corroboration

 

[vince284]

It is admissible if it can be corroborated. That’s how we obtain the facts. Corroboration

Correct, so it can't stand on it's own. So to the original post, where the politician is saying that hearsay is better, how is that MUCH better than direct evidence?

 

[Josiah]

The REALITY is that the circus going on is NOT a court of law and the Rule of Law doesn't apply. It's just political, it's just politics. Truth isn't an issue, the Law isn't an issue. It's political. We are NOT watching the Supreme Court in action, we are NOT watching judges in action. We are watching POLITICIANS do what they do best.

People speaking are not asked to be witnesses. They are not asked to tell the truth. It's not a courtroom. In politics, lying is accepted. Gossip is accepted. Politics is the art of power, the art of __________ your opponents.

It's a mistake to see this as anything other than what it is. And I suspect for those who watch, it will be like watching sausage being made. And they will realize: THIS is in lieu of actually getting something done, addressing the problems of our country. Billions will be spent on THIS in stead of ........ And the Democrats simply want to put the focus on how bad Trump is instead of how bad the candidates running against him are and how they've gotten NOTHING done... NOTHING.

 

[Andrew]

Just another public smear, this public character assassination won't change the minds of those on either side, Judge Judy would have dismissed this case in 10 seconds

 

[RichWh1]

At which point is hearsay BETTER than direct evidence? That's what the democrat politician is trying to convince everyone to believe with his statement.

I never said it was. The author of the OP did. I merely commented that it is admissible as evidence if corroborated

Also the House is not a Court of Law and is a fact finding body, not a prosecuting body.
That is reserved for the Senate

 

[psalms 91]

They have first hand accounts so it is not just second hand