Why is hearsay allowed for "whistleblowing" and "impeachment" but not in any court in America?

So in a sense laws do not apply to our politicans. (In more ways than one)

TRUMP?  He is the anti-LAW.

Why did you give him Asker's Pick and contradict all of the words over and over and over????

Right it would not fly in a court of law. 

The House of Representatives is NOT a court of law.  You can compare it to the District Attorney's office which indicts the alleged criminal.   This post was edited by SpunkySenior at September 28, 2019 9:04 AM MDT

Ok. But a DA is not allowed to use hearsay. 

From what I can tell in this the House is the investigator, the DA,  the grand jury and the PA.  
So if they get to the PA state then they are not allowed to use hearsay (then they are in court) 

I do find it interesting that it was only recently that it was changed to allow a whisleblower to be hearsay and be creditable. This change was in Aug 2019. Before this change it would have been threw out. 

What "PA" are you referencing?  

The House. From what I can tell the House acts as the Investigators (they are issuing subpoenas etc now), the DA is Schiff, the entire House will be the Grand Jury. If they impeach (indict) then they will become the PA in impeachment. (Will the PA (House via Schiff etc) still be allowed to use heresay in the trial part where Justice Roberts presides and Senate is the jury? 

PA in this case is the House, still. 

Here is a simplified version of the impeachment process.  Perhaps it will help us all to understand it.

I like what I would hope the Cliff notes version might say:  Announcement--->Removal.

Actually almost everything unclassified in this whistleblower complaint could be admissible in virtually any court. 

All the noise & outrage arguing that it's invalid is coming from people who don't know the real rules on hearsay, or choose to ignore them.

No it is hearsay and the exceptions do not apply. So no not allowed in court.

So you have been hiding your law degree then? Smh

M2c, it appears that you cannot assimilate that there is a difference between a complaint and testimony. Despite all of the various attempts to explain it to you, no amount of reason sinks in. 
It is fair to observe many here recognize this continuing theme in your posts. This post was edited by Don Barzini at October 31, 2019 7:36 AM MDT

I was responding to the statement made that it would be allowed in court....no it would not. I do not need a law degree to read the law. 

Maybe not to read it, but I see some indication that understanding the law that one reads is facilitated by having taken a law course or two---like maybe Criminal Law 101 and Civil Law 101.

Indeed---as they say, even if one falls asleep every time one goes to the opera, one is still able to recognize the March of the Toreadors from Carmen.

https://www.classicfm.com/discover-music/latest/best-classical-march-music/

Love the link. 

Google can be everyone's friend---Available on the internet: 

 https://www.reckon.com/reckon-blog/8-powerful-tricks-make-grasp-new-concepts-faster/

Please don't try to assert your own obvious political bias as fact.

It's plain that exemptions to hearsay exist, and are allowed when statements in complaints provide enough detail to support an investigation. If information found during the course of investigation discloses facts that confirm what's in the complaint, those statements are no longer excluded as hearsay and can be offered as proof.

That's the process that's been involved in all whistleblower complaints since 1989. The intent has always been to hold government and government officials accountable for unlawful actions  You're freaked out now because this one particular complaint challenges your partisan loyalties. Its clear you believe that certain people in power should be above the law, and even beyond question.

I have nothing but contempt for that idea, and will not debate you or anyone else over sick, extremist politics.






This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 1, 2019 5:17 PM MDT

Just because there are exemptions does not mean they apply. Which of those exemptions would apply to this particular case?

As for the whistleblower rules...no they have not allowed 2nd hand information since the 1800s. 
It has been allowed since Aug 2019.  This post was edited by my2cents at September 29, 2019 7:07 AM MDT

Again, you're making an argument that's not based on real facts or actual legal standards : 

KEWLEY v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

No. 97-3458 - United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

August 20, 1998.

[Petition for review by an employee of the Department of Health and Human Services following a "protected disclosure" under the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, Pub.L. No. 101-12, 103 Stat. 16 (1989) ]

"It has long been settled, however, that hearsay evidence may be used in Board proceedings and may be accepted as preponderant evidence even without corroboration if, to a reasonable mind, the circumstances are such as to lend it credence. See Hayes v. Department of the Navy, 727 F.2d 1535, 1538 (Fed.Cir.1984). In addition, we have held that procedural matters such as the admissibility of evidence, including hearsay, fall within the sound discretion of the Board and its AJs. See Curtin v. Office of Personnel Management, 846 F.2d 1373, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir.1988)"

At this point I believe that you'll say anything to prop up your shaky politics. Its really not worth anyone's time to argue with you.

This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at October 31, 2019 7:39 AM MDT

Here it is at 6:03 PM CDT and I can still hear the echoes of the roar of the crowd's approval and the clapping of the applause for this post of yours---over 3 hours later.