None? Sorry man but unless you have a method of traveling to alternate universes that just isn't true. Much of the latest two closed testimonies are both 1st hand. As was a decent part of Vindman's and Sondland's testimony. As well as portions of the other 10. So much evidence!
Also, even then the second hand accounts can count. These specifically being irrelevant and unreliable is your opinion and not always the rule:
Republicans blasted 'hearsay' impeachment testimony. But they were in Congress, not court.
Analysis: Even in judicial proceedings, there are over 30 situations where hearsay is reliable enough to be allowed into evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/hearsay-might-be-barred-court-congressional-hearing-entirely-different-n1082111
Hearsay is a rule of evidence that applies to testimony made by witnesses who are unable to appear in court to offer (and defend) their testimony. Usually, those witnesses are “unable” to appear because they are dead or have fled the jurisdiction of the court. The Hearsay rule generally makes this kind of testimony inadmissible in a court of law (subject to over 20 exceptions) because we want juries to be able to assess the credibility of witnesses by hearing their testimony directly, if possible.
In this case, Donald Trump is not (yet) on trial. He is being investigated. Investigations are not subject to the Hearsay rule, because refusing to listen to all the evidence of a crime when you are trying to investigate that crime is ridiculous. The people who are testifying in this investigation are testifying to their recollections, and the credibility of those recollections can be assessed by the investigators, in this case Congress. Most important, there are no witnesses who are truly “unavailable”; rather, Donald Trump has made witnesses unavailable by refusing to let them submit to lawful subpoenas from Congress. To allow Trump to benefit from illegally making witnesses to his misconduct unavailable would be the equivalent of allowing a kingpin to benefit from killing his henchmen before trial.
Even if Trump is somehow allowed to get away with that, there are numerous other exceptions to the Hearsay rule that would apply if this were a trial, which it is not. There’s the “co-conspirator” exception for when statements are made “during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.” There’s the exception that allows people to testify to another’s state of mind. And there’s the “catch-all” exception that allows Hearsay testimony if witnesses are available and have been notified in advance that their statements will be offered at trial.
To recap: Hearsay doesn’t apply here. If it did, it would be Trump’s fault. If that didn’t matter, there are numerous exceptions available to allow this kind of testimony. Every Republican with a modicum of legal training who makes a “this is all hearsay” argument is an embarrassment to their profession, their country, and probably their family.
Log in to comment