Hearsay almost always leads to admissible evidence. Your argument is incredibly stupid not even the Republicans in the house or senate are making that argument.
I was responding to the claim that hearsay is never admissible.
Read the description of the definition. It's there whether you're man enough to admit it or not. If you can't, perhaps being a low IQ nigger is your problem.
I am not saying it should be admissible, but it will lead to direct evidence. It already has.

I read it... nowhere does it say you must have direct knowledge.
You are silly.
You most certainly are saying it should. What evidence has it lead to?
Now you have a new site, from some two bit law firm's website? Really?
Under some unrelated law, some whistleblowers must have direct knowledge?
Keep typing in google, maybe you can find something. You really are pitiful.
Did you not see the summary Trump released? He waived his privilege, that is now fully discoverable.
Trumps release of the phone call summary was a HUGE mistake. HUGE.
I read it... nowhere does it say you must have direct knowledge.
You are silly.
I really think that they would have gotten away with it if he hadn't.
This is how many investigations work, a whistleblower goes to the police and says, I heard Johnny is selling tuns of narcotics to kids by the school.
The police go watch the area the whistleblower says the crimes are occuring, see Johnny selling the drugs and arrest him.
Did you not see the summary Trump released? He waived his privilege, that is now fully discoverable.
How many threads is this psycho going to start?
How can there be a new crime when you haven’t found this first crime yet lol?
No Link = Fake News = Jarod is a lying sack of shit