From Bill Formby in MadMikesAmerica:
Hearsay evidence is considered statements that one person says that a third person had said. In the jurisdictions or venues, I worked that could be one neighbor telling another that he overheard a subject say, “I am going to kill you”, shortly followed by 2 gunshots. That is hearsay evidence and normally would be disallowed in court. However, if, while investigating a murder at the subject’s home that the second person told the investigator, that subject would soon be in an interrogation room for a long, long time trying to convince interrogators that it was not him.
There are several factors that would go into getting the hearsay statements admitted into evidence. One, of course, is statements made during the interrogation. If he or someone with direct knowledge, like his chief of staff, basically said that he did make the statement, then the overheard statement becomes evidence and the hearsay statement becomes a corroborating statement. In other words, you can believe the overheard statement because he immediately told another person. That is the point that Representative Jordan was trying to make. What he didn’t understand, however, was that the alleged hearsay witness was simply carrying out his sworn duties as an official representative of the United States government.
Is this representative more believable than the neighbor, probably, within the same consideration of a police officer telling a judge and jury what another officer told him? Both are representatives carrying out their sworn duties.
So, I watched that whole hearing beginning to end. It was remarkable for many reasons. One thing that really stuck out to me was Rep. Jordan. To be fair, a lot of what he does sticks out to me. I think it has something to do with the insincere rage and anger he uses when vomiting out the English Language. This is a tangent, though. What stuck out was his whining and complaining about “The Whistleblower”. Now this, in and of itself, was not remarkable. What made it remarkable and stick out to me is that Rep. Jordan also complained about the validity and accuracy of ‘hearsay’ evidence. If hearsay from the Ambassador to Ukraine is dismissed, than what’s so important about outing and questioning “The Whistleblower”? Republicans have harped on the fact that “The Whistleblower’s” own complaint was based on hearsay evidence. That should be just as easily dismissed as Ambassador Taylor’s, right?
I almost think it’s not really about the hearsay evidence, huh. However, I’m sure these honorable Representatives who have sworn to uphold the Constitution aren’t trying to bully, scare and indirectly cause harm to another individual (and possibly others who haven’t come forward yet) simply following through with their own oath to the Constitution.
Right? I mean, it seems like they are nakedly doing that, but surely I’m misunderstanding their disinterest and dismissal in one person’s hearsay and their avid interest in another’s.