Hearsay is usually a mixture of truths and untruths; gossip passed around that often does a lot of damage to reputations and friendships. To find hearsay at the heart of an impeachment inquiry into President Trump is beyond belief.
So Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) claimed during the impeachment hearing on Wednesday, Nov. 14, that “hearsay” could be much better evidence than direct,” who was he kidding?
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.”
Democrat Rep. Mike Quigley (IL) on evidence: “Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct … and it’s certainly valid in this instance” pic.twitter.com/JD0Ui6acxD
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 13, 2019
Donald Trump Jr. slashed through his comments like a hot knife through butter with his tweets:
“Can you believe this insanity? ‘Hearsay 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?”
Trump Jr. added, “From a reliable 4th party source according to other Democrats like #FullOfSchiff the best evidence is (is) [expletive] you just make up for political gain as that appears to be what they have been doing all along.”
Can you believe this insanity? “Hearsay can be much better evidence than DIRECT EVIDENCE” according to Democrat Mike Quigley. Are you fricken kidding me? 3rd and 4th party info better than hearing it yourself? pic.twitter.com/K8WVcPhv7v
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) November 13, 2019
He concluded, “Sounds exactly like what someone would say when they’re desperate and have no actual evidence …”
One of the chief complaints from Republicans on the impeachment inquiry is that the whistleblower did not have any firsthand information on the phone call between President Trump and the Ukrainian president’s phone conversation, the information is all secondhand or thirdhand.
According to The Federalist, between May 2018 and August 2019, the requirement that a whistleblower must have direct firsthand knowledge of any wrongdoing before complaining was secretly eliminated from the whistleblower form. The new form allows for the whistleblower to file a complaint without any prior knowledge of an event, just based solely on hearsay.
“The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee’s secondhand knowledge of wrongdoing,” the previous form stated under the bolded heading “FIRSTHAND INFORMATION REQUIRED.” “This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing.”
The whistleblower complaint form previously declared, “Any complaint must contain only firsthand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected,” reported The Federalist.
The new form thus allowed the whistleblower to put in a complaint about the president’s phone conversation with President Zelenskiy, basing it on secondhand or thirdhand hearsay.
It appears to be part of the plot to remove the president from power.