Politics

Mike Quigley Claims That Hearsay Can Be Better Than Direct Evidence

Virginia Kruta Associate Editor
Font Size:

Democratic Illinois Rep. Mike Quigley claimed during Wednesday’s impeachment hearing that hearsay could be better than direct evidence.

Quigley, while questioning Deputy Asst. Secretary of State George Kent and acting Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor attempted to make the case that their impressions of secondhand information could potentially be more valuable than direct evidence of what had occurred. (RELATED: Devin Nunes Blasts Impeachment Hearing As ‘Low-Rent Ukrainian Sequel’ To ‘Russia Hoax’)

“I guess to close, a primer on hearsay, I think the American public needs to be reminded that countless people have been convicted on hearsay,” Quigley said. “Because the courts have routinely allowed and created, needed exceptions to hearsay. Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct as we have learned in painful instances and it’s certainly valid in this instance.”

“Will the gentleman yield, because none of those exceptions would apply to this testimony,” someone objected.

Impeachment Chairman Adam Schiff shut down the interruption, saying that it was “not the time for colloquy.”

A “colloquy,” the parliamentary equivalent of a football huddle, would have given members the opportunity to clarify what the hearsay exceptions were and how they did or did not apply to this particular hearing.

Donald Trump Jr. was quick to respond, tweeting, “Can you believe this insanity? “Heresay 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? ”