They’re arguing admission against interest, business records, and/or the residual exception, which basically says “we can’t get our witness to testify, but the testimony is important, he said it once, and when he did there was some indicia of credibility to it.”

They rely heavily on the residual exception.  I’ve never litigated it, but it strikes me that courts have to be extremely careful in resorting to it lest the entirety of the hearsay rule be swallowed up.  I know many states adopted it in the case of domestic abuse (i.e. the wife that won’t later testify even though she at one time provided a statement). I’m not sure that it applies here.

At some point, if the government can’t get a witness to testify, they have to kiss goodbye whatever evidence he would have testified to.

The residual exception is a joke.  It’s a tool for overly ambitious prosecutors who can’t make a case under the traditional standards.  Courts accepting the argument without any meaningful analysis drive me insane. It’s like a nuclear version of Potter Stewart’s obscenity analysis. 

What exactly are circumstances that indicate a prior, out-of-court statement is trustworthy?  In order to buy into the myth that such circumstances exist, your view of the world ignores reality.  People lie in all kinds of circumstances for trivial reasons and for no reason at all.  Give me a circumstance and I’ll give you a reason it might be a lie.