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

Thank you that was interesting. I was not aware of those exceptions. 
Upon reading through I do not see any that would apply in this case.

Are you channeling Attorney General Barr for this answer?

Nope just reading the exceptions. 

Oh, I think this one might apply:  Reputation Concerning Character

Are you implying something about my character? 

No---Trump's character.

Yes it is. 
I would not be allowed to say in court: Bob told me that joe stole my credit from my purse. Even if the police found my credit card in Joe's wallet. 

But “Joe” is still guilty; and thus is vulnerable to criminal or civil litigation.

M2c, you badly misunderstand (or are purposely mis-construing) the intent of whistleblowing provisions. I suspect the same is true of impeachment proceedings. This post was edited by Don Barzini at September 28, 2019 2:42 PM MDT

Deflecting.....the topic is hearsay being allowed when it would not allowed in a courtroom.

A Trumpican accusing someone ELSE of deflecting. Oh, the irony.

Simple Trump said nothing wrong. 

Simple Trump said nothing wrong. 

Everything he says - or tweets - is wrong. Have a liddle' covfefe with your hamberders.

Covfefe was not coffee. 

So you got nothing. 

If we had a TOS for belligerence in the face of reason, you would not be allowed on here any longer.  

And the misspelling is the LEAST of it.  Everything he says is a boldface lie.  Everything he says is shameless self-promotion.  He cannot tell the truth if his life depended on it.   Now his freedom depends on it, and he will be locked up because of his WRONG.  

No, it isn’t a deflection, it is extrapolation. 

Walt answered your question. Whistleblower reports only give impetus to the investigations that establish whether charges or impeachment are merited. 
This is where you seem to run into the ditch.

The Watergate scandal was uncovered by whistleblowers (though not an official title at that time). I wonder if even you can see any parallels there. This post was edited by Don Barzini at September 29, 2019 3:13 PM MDT

I know he answered it. I gave him askers pick. 

We need whitleblowers but there should be requirements for them. Starting with they should not be 2nd hand hearsay. And up until resently that was indeed a requirement. 

This post was edited by my2cents at September 27, 2019 6:34 PM MDT

It is what it is.
When alleged hearsay foreshadows actual evidence that supports the claim, doesn’t matter who said it. 

Joe is still guilty. 

When you rise to public office, change the law. This post was edited by Don Barzini at September 28, 2019 2:43 PM MDT

Well, for sure, Joe is going to be a person of interest to the police..

It was the rule up until Aug of 2019......this is the only whistleblower report that has ever been allowed with simple hearsay. 

Well, God is suspected of working in mysterious ways.

Well trust me the ICIG is not God. 

No, he would be the instrumental rather than the efficient cause in this case.