Quote from: Spendulus on February 03, 2020, 12:53:48 PM

Quote from: Viper1 on February 03, 2020, 09:06:03 AM

Quote from: Spendulus on February 02, 2020, 05:58:42 PM

Hearsay evidence of "B" may exist, but is not admissible in a court of law.

That is a common fallacy but is not true at all. There is a pretty long list of exceptions to it such as some of these which could be applied in this case:

- The court recognizes that by law the declarant is not required to testify;
- The declarant refuses to testify;

Some other exceptions which may or may not apply:

- It has sound guarantees of trustworthiness
- It is offered to help prove a material fact
- It is more probative than other equivalent and reasonably obtainable evidence
- Its admission would forward the cause of justice
- The other parties have been notified that it will be offered into evidence

That's just a handful. So yes, hearsay can be admissible. In this case much of it was corroborated between a variety of witnesses which gives it much more weight.

Well, the Democrats have pursued all such theories, and here they are.

Don't know what your point it. When one group is judge, jury and executioner they can choose to ignore what is appropriate and legal for whatever reason they can pull out of their asses. Either side. And the people end up just having to suck it up and complain in their beer but then turn around and keep voting them all in time and time again. These days it's always voting for who you think is the least bad because there is no other choice.