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

If that is the case, the President Trump will be removed from office. God wins....if not the we see that ICIG is not working on God's behalf. 

Invalid syllogism and conclusion.

The Senate members still have the free will that God grants and Satan rejoices in.

(Did you see the picture of Senator Lindsey Graham that Steve Colbert had on his show the other night?---It showed Graham's reaction when Graham discovered what Satan actually offered to pay Graham for his worthless soul.) 

And obviously neither are you.

Of course I am not God. I have never claimed anything of the sort. 

Tell you what, M2C, keep on repeating that and watch how much difference it makes to anyone.

You haven‘t learned a blessed thing. 

The only requirement that a whistleblower needs is to have seen or heard something that he thinks should be investigated by someone in charge.

There is absolutely no requirement that it not be hearsay.

A whistleblower (also written as whistle-blower or whistle blower) is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organization that is either private or public.

Yawn

Please respect the members and cover your mouth when you yawn.

Then the topic itself must be judged as inappropriate.  It's like asking why grapes can be green, black, etc., when they are ripe, but bananas are yellow when ripe.

No...the question was about in general why was hearsay being allowed in a whistleblower report. 

It doesn't happen all that frequently; but when I don't understand something, I usually say so because, well, it's just easier in the long run..

I think there is the possibility that the distance between reach and grasp approaches infinity.

Indeed. Particularly when they are extending in opposite directions, at different speeds, and the latter is completely oblivious to the former.  
Lol This post was edited by Don Barzini at September 29, 2019 3:07 PM MDT

---and I totally forgot to consider the retrograde component of the issue.

lol This post was edited by tom jackson at September 29, 2019 3:10 PM MDT

Tripp had taped recording of Monica talking about Clinton's abuse of power (affair with an unpaid intern). As long as the taping legal (DC has the one party consent law when it comes to recording) and the voice can be proven to be the person claimed....then it is not considered hearsay. So as soon as it was proven it was Monica's voice on the tape....it became real evidence and not hearsay. This post was edited by my2cents at October 31, 2019 8:09 PM MDT

Sooooooooo  heresay.

If she had a video of that little whore on her knees that's one thing.

total heresay

No not hearsay....read again.