• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is “hearsay” better than direct evidence?

Is “hearsay” better than direct evidence?

  • Total voters
    49
  • Poll closed .
zimmer

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Is it?

If you were in court defending yourself against hearsay charges, would you accept this premise?

As a note... The Soviets used this with regularity to fill their Gulag Archipelago.
 
zimmer said:
Is it?

If you were in court defending yourself against hearsay charges, would you accept this premise?

As a note... The Soviets used this with regularity to fill their Gulag Archipelago.
Click to expand...

Your honor I heard from my buddy Jake, who heard from his friend Tom, who said that Francine was seen stealing my muffin out of the rec-room fridge. So She must be the thief.

Yeah.. I don't see it happening.
 
zimmer said:
Is it?

If you were in court defending yourself against hearsay charges, would you accept this premise?

As a note... The Soviets used this with regularity to fill their Gulag Archipelago.
Click to expand...

Do police use hearsay in gathering information for an investigation? Yes

An impeachment inquiry is not a trial. The rest of your drivel shows your comments are ignorant about impeachment.
 
First hand evidence is better. Which is why it's good we have multiple first hand accounts under oath and a transcript that all show Trump specifically held up the aid to Ukraine in order to get the announcement of an investigation into the Bidens. He could've opened an investigation with his own government but he didn't because it was about PR, not justice.
 
zimmer said:
Is it?
Click to expand...
Better at what? All sorts of different types of evidence have their uses and a combination of evidence is always required to progress criminal cases at their different stages.

zimmer said:
If you were in court defending yourself against hearsay charges, would you accept this premise?
Click to expand...
If I was in court and the only evidence was hearsay I'd be very happy because I'd win very quickly, though I'd be surprised that such a case would even get that far in the first place.
 
Praxas said:
Do police use hearsay in gathering information for an investigation? Yes

An impeachment inquiry is not a trial. The rest of your drivel shows your comments are ignorant about impeachment.
Click to expand...

Question... “is it better than direct evidence”?

Yes?
No?
 
Last edited:
HonestJoe said:
Better at what? All sorts of different types of evidence have their uses and a combination of evidence is always required to progress criminal cases at their different stages.
Click to expand...
Better than direct evidence.

If I was in court and the only evidence was hearsay I'd be very happy because I'd win very quickly, though I'd be surprised that such a case would even get that far in the first place.
Click to expand...
This part is worthy of a thumbs up.
 
If someone calls the police because they heard there was a murder in their neighborhood, and the police investigate and find half a dozen dead bodies, the 'hearsay' of the original caller is largely irrelevant to the case.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
First hand evidence is better. Which is why it's good we have multiple first hand accounts under oath and a transcript that all show Trump specifically held up the aid to Ukraine in order to get the announcement of an investigation into the Bidens. He could've opened an investigation with his own government but he didn't because it was about PR, not justice.
Click to expand...

Please provide links to this. The only first hand evidence that I have seen is the transcript, in which aid is never mentioned.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
First hand evidence is better. Which is why it's good we have multiple first hand accounts under oath and a transcript that all show Trump specifically held up the aid to Ukraine in order to get the announcement of an investigation into the Bidens. He could've opened an investigation with his own government but he didn't because it was about PR, not justice.
Click to expand...

I almost forgot, the other first hand evidence is Zalensky stating at the UN that there was no pressure (i.e. he had no idea that aid was dependent on action).

In other words, the first hand evidence so far is against your side, not for it.
 
zimmer said:
Is it?
Click to expand...

If Trump himself would like to Testify Under Oath we would welcome that. Until he does, and as long as he continues to block those with first hand knowledge from testifying second had information will do just fine.
 
zimmer said:
Question... “is it better than direct evidence”?

Yes?
No?
Click to expand...

I don't jump through your "Have you stopped beating your wife" hoop questions. I answered and if you don't like it, well tough. The world isn't a YES or NO world. Deal with it.
 
MrWonka said:
If Trump himself would like to Testify Under Oath we would welcome that. Until he does, and as long as he continues to block those with first hand knowledge from testifying second had information will do just fine.
Click to expand...

He released the transcript of the call that the Weasel-Leaker and Schiff misrepresented.

It is the best evidence as it is original source evidence from when the call was made.

Not Taylor, nor Kent, nor Vindmann could out the impeachable offense in the transcript.
 
Last edited:
Praxas said:
I don't jump through your "Have you stopped beating your wife" hoop questions. I answered and if you don't like it, well tough. The world isn't a YES or NO world. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Well, as I educated one of your compatriots today about what a strawman is and is not, I’ll continue to educate Leftists fearful of simple questions.

This is not a “do you beat your wife or not” question. It is a question of whether hearsay evidence is better than direct evidence. I didn’t make the silly claim, but some silly Leftist did.

It seems you are very reluctant to answer. Why? Is it, or is it not?
 
MrWonka said:
Why don't you just let Tom testify?
Click to expand...

Tom released the transcript, much to the shock of the Leftists.

It is much better testimony than Tom rehashing the call months later. It is “direct evidence” produced by an independent 3rd party.

PS. Your side must produce the case against Tom. You have a case, or not? After the “Star” witnesses failed... seems like you’ve ****ed yourselves royally once again.

A8A2F714-E086-4591-8B85-EAE26E9B604E.jpg
 
Last edited:
RabidAlpaca said:
First hand evidence is better. Which is why it's good we have multiple first hand accounts under oath and a transcript that all show Trump specifically held up the aid to Ukraine in order to get the announcement of an investigation into the Bidens. He could've opened an investigation with his own government but he didn't because it was about PR, not justice.
Click to expand...

And the actual tapes of Biden threatening to withhold a billion dollars if a foreign prosecutor is not fired, how do you feel about that? Or is only when a republican is charged with it that you care?
 
MrWonka said:
If Trump himself would like to Testify Under Oath we would welcome that. Until he does, and as long as he continues to block those with first hand knowledge from testifying second had information will do just fine.
Click to expand...

Until the democrats allow all the witnesses cited by the republicans to testify, not just coached and democrat approved witness, and install a fair and unchanging system for this farce, it is all hearsay evidence and the democrats have had three years to prove otherwise and failed.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
First hand evidence is better. Which is why it's good we have multiple first hand accounts under oath and a transcript that all show Trump specifically held up the aid to Ukraine in order to get the announcement of an investigation into the Bidens. He could've opened an investigation with his own government but he didn't because it was about PR, not justice.
Click to expand...

He asked them to work with the US government. You really should read the transcripts again.
 
zimmer said:
Is it?

If you were in court defending yourself against hearsay charges, would you accept this premise?

As a note... The Soviets used this with regularity to fill their Gulag Archipelago.
Click to expand...

In any civil or criminal case, hearsay testimony is not allowed.
If this gets to the senate, none of these witnesses would be allowed to testify.
 
Arjay81 said:
And the actual tapes of Biden threatening to withhold a billion dollars if a foreign prosecutor is not fired, how do you feel about that? Or is only when a republican is charged with it that you care?
Click to expand...

Biden was enacting US foreign policy. The Trump cabal secretly wanted dirt on an opponent and solicited information of value (a bribe) from the Ukrainian government.
 
Praxas said:
Do police use hearsay in gathering information for an investigation? Yes

An impeachment inquiry is not a trial. The rest of your drivel shows your comments are ignorant about impeachment.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference in using hearsay statements to gather data versus what is presented at trial.
If Dave heard from several sources that Harry killed the guy and that is all you have, it will never see a court room.

The impeachment inquiry is a fishing expedition in hopes of finding a smoking gun. They are searching for a crime they can’t find.
None of these hearsay witnesses will testify if it gets to the senate for trial.

Instead of wasting taxpayer money, get to work and let the voters decide in less than a year from now.

Do you think senate democrats will end this circus before it gets to the senate? Do you think senate democrats running for election want to campaign or sit in the senate listening to testimony?
 
Manc Skipper said:
Biden was enacting US foreign policy. .
Click to expand...

LOL
I would have done the same thing to protect my son’s lucrative job.
To defend against the Russians, the blankets will help to keep Ukrainian people warm when their homes are blown up by Russian tanks.
Are you sure Obama wasn’t a Russian agent?
 
Dans La Lune said:
If someone calls the police because they heard there was a murder in their neighborhood, and the police investigate and find half a dozen dead bodies, the 'hearsay' of the original caller is largely irrelevant to the case.
Click to expand...

That’s not really hearsay because no one is at risk of losing their freedom because of something you heard from someone else.

Hearsay would be if the prosecutor tried to convict someone based on what someone else heard from a third party, with no supporting direct evidence. So if Sam told you that Myrna committed the murder in your neighborhood and the government used what you heard as evidence at trial.

Hearsay, or rumor, is valuable during the investigation phase, but it should only be used to point investigators in the right direction.
 
Outlook said:
There is a big difference in using hearsay statements to gather data versus what is presented at trial.
If Dave heard from several sources that Harry killed the guy and that is all you have, it will never see a court room.

The impeachment inquiry is a fishing expedition in hopes of finding a smoking gun. They are searching for a crime they can’t find.
None of these hearsay witnesses will testify if it gets to the senate for trial.

Instead of wasting taxpayer money, get to work and let the voters decide in less than a year from now.

Do you think senate democrats will end this circus before it gets to the senate? Do you think senate democrats running for election want to campaign or sit in the senate listening to testimony?
Click to expand...

But you guys had no problem investigating Hillary and Obama for YEARS AND YEARS. So spare us your hypocritical soapbox retarded comments.

Face facts, Trump tried to extort Ukraine for his own personal gain and now he's going to go down for it or at the very least, prove the GOP should not have the right to govern. Republicans are so scared they have to hurry up and deflect. :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom