Rep. Mike Quigley defended the impeachment testimony of two witnesses by asserting that hearsay evidence is sometimes admitted into court.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent and acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor testified in the House’s impeachment proceedings into President Trump on Tuesday. Neither witness has had significant contact with Trump, and almost all of their testimony is based on the accounts of others shared with them.
“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, 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.”
An immediate challenge came from a GOP member saying that hearsay evidence would not be admissible into a court case such as the case for impeaching Trump.
Courts do not typically allow hearsay evidence because it does not allow defendants to cross-examine the person who made the statement or check for its accuracy, but the rule does come with exceptions, such as statements made that show the subject’s emotional state.
