Is anyone surprised that the obligatory CNN legal analyst claims hearsay is evidence?

Renato Mariotti’s a left-wing lawyer and (is/was) a CNN legal analyst, and a product of Yale…that tells us all we need to know when wondering how a lawyer can be so dumb.

He’s in thrall over the first day of Democrat SHAMpeachment hearings, opining that the Republicans “…simply can’t overcome the abundant evidence Democrats possess to prove their central point…President Donald Trump conditioned military aid to Ukraine on a public announcement that his political rival, Joe Biden, was under investigation”

‘Evidence’?

BlueCollar never passes itself off as legal experts, but even a Yale grad should know that hearsay testimony is not only not evidence, but not admissible in any court.

And both ‘witnesses’ at yesterday’s circus…errr…hearing, had only hearsay testimony.

They never spoke with the President; they were not on the calls with Ukraine. Every bit of their comments yesterday were opinion, and based on 2nd-/3rd-/4th-hand hearsay.

But that’s the legal climate we live in – where one Party can destroy 30,000 emails and BleachBit harddrives AFTER they were subpoena’d – yet, be declared unindictable…

…while the other Party can be declared guilty, based on unfounded hearsay.

By Yale-educated lawyer types, no less.

We said it all along, and remain convinced (and this American Thinker article concurs) that attacks against the President are not so much a measure of their hatred for him…

…but a measure of how much they fear what he’ll expose of their criminal activities.

Attorney General Barr…FASTER, please.