As we told you earlier, some observers of the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment inquiry hearing, including Sharyl Attkisson, think the Dems pushing this process is starting to backfire on them and benefit Trump:
Sharyl Attkisson’s assessment of Schiff’s impeachment hearing: ‘Major bust for Democrats’ (and more) https://t.co/inFXdXkniL
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) November 13, 2019
And it’s hard to argue against that assessment. One Democrat was even reduced to arguing that “hearsay” is even better than direct evidence:
Rep. Quigley: "Hearsay Can Be Much Better Evidence than Direct" – Laughable…Absurd… #WitchHunt #ImpeachmentInquiry pic.twitter.com/oTb7HI1y4Q
— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) November 13, 2019
Democrat Rep. Mike Quigley (IL) on evidence: "Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct … and it's certainly valid in this instance" pic.twitter.com/JD0Ui6acxD
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 13, 2019
So it’s come to this?
"Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct."
Uh ??
So not only are the Democrats ADMITTING their entire impeachment sham is based off of hearsay, but now they're trying to defend it. What a joke! pic.twitter.com/14oYqp2UGJ
— Abigail Marone (@abigailmarone) November 13, 2019
Consider…
This hearing went so badly for Democrats, Rep. Mike Quigley felt it necessary to argue "hearsay can be much better evidence than direct…”
— Richard Baris (@Peoples_Pundit) November 13, 2019
This guy's logic may be worse than Swalwell… which I didn't even think was possible. https://t.co/7V9OcTiYeY
— Colorado RedTraci (@goptraci) November 13, 2019
Nor did we.
