Replies

Hearsay is sometimes allowed in courts. There are a variety of exceptions, most of which make some sense when they are explained properly. But I can't really think of any that would be applicable here.

The one that would theoretically be most applicable here is an "admission against interest", where you are seeking to introduce an out of court statement made by someone that makes themselves look bad. The problem is that would really be applicable only to out of court statements made by Trump himself, and that doesn't appear to be relevant here.

It's worth looking at the various purposes for the hearsay rule in the first place, and the context of a trial where opposing versions of fact are presented to the jury, so the jury can decide which version is more (or most) likely true.

The stakes at trial are "higher" for the defendant, than the stakes in everyday life - so getting it right is more important.

If evidence isn't limited somehow, trials would be overwhelmed with BS witnesses. Here, Congress can pick and choose witnesses by name, and as a general rule, Congress is NOT concerned with getting it right, rather just with obtaining power.

Hearsay is a generally an excellent way to limit evidence and get to the truth. I'm sure there are cases where all the direct witnesses are liars and a hearsay witness is honest, and more likely to result in the right outcome. All rules have exceptions.

The winner of the argument is the side that frames the issue, poses the question. The DEMs have so far been successful at posing the question as an assertion that Hunter Biden's involvement in Burisma has no element of corruption - that is a settled fact in the DEM framing.

Point being that the reliability of evidence isn't the only important aspect to getting a just outcome.

A final thought about hearsay. Should hearsay to the benefit of Trump be admitted?