The Truth is not Admissable?

I don't get it. I have never gotten it.

It seems to me that the courts were established for two reasons: 1) to get to the truth of a matter, and 2) to adjudicate based on the established truth. Officers of the court, meaning the judge and attorneys representing both parties, should be aligned in the pursuit of truth. The law itself should be wrapped around this same concept, of getting to the truth and then metering out rewards and punishments based on the facts. The parties who come to court should both be looking for an outcome based on truth. Can we all agree on that?

If so, then why do we have laws regarding "inadmissable evidence"? How can the truth ever not be admissable, if one of the legal system's purposes is to establish the truth? And of course, the thing that I am pondering is Illinois Governor Rod Blogojevich's intent to fight being impeached. He was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, as evidenced by the wiretaps we all heard on national television and radio. Wasn't that your voice, sir? But his outrageous defense is that the wiretaps were not legally obtained, and therefore the evidence is not admissable. WHO CARES, MR. GOVERNOR? It's not like you didn't say what you said! We heard it!

So why would a legal system not allow the truth to be admissable? I understand the need to protect innocents, but that's not the case here. No one needed protection, the system wasn't out to get anyone and everyone, there was no witch hunt, no widespread fishnet for any little thing that might pop up. A guilty man was caught doing the very thing the wiretaps were put in place to capture.

We just want the truth to be considered by any intelligent person, jury, congressional body, or other competent jursidiction. Shame on any officer of the court who is not dedicated to the same ideal.

Mr. Governor, save yourself further embarassment and save the taxpayers some money. Give us all a Christmas present by resigning.