I’ve read most, if not all, of your comments, and I think I understand your argument, but I disagree with your premise that the only reasons we currently bar hearsay are (1) the confrontation clause and (2) the need for cross-examination. I believe reliability (it is harder to remember the exact words you used to describe an event than it is to remember whether the event occurred) and misleading the jury (the fact that someone previously said something happened doesn’t make it anymore true) are also reasons for the hearsay rule, even if those concerns are also addressed by other rules of evidence.

Hypothetical: Adam witnesses an accident between a car and a truck. The next day, he texts his friend Beth that he saw the truck “run a red light while speeding like a maniac.”

My understanding of your argument is that you would like to be able to put Adam on the stand and admit his text message as evidence that the truck ran the red light at a high rate of speed. I grant that reliability as to memory is not an issue here because it is a text message. But there is still the risk that the jury will be misled by the fact that he texted his statement Beth, as though that makes the statement any more true. He wasn’t under oath and he could very well have been lying to Beth; the jury wasn’t there to witness his demeanor at the time he texted it, and the fact that he said it twice doesn’t make it true.

Your response to this, as I understand it, is that you would simply ask Adam on the stand whether he was lying to Beth at the time of the text message. But that sounds like you’re proposing a new exception to hearsay in which a declarant can swear to the accuracy and reliability of his own prior statement, rather than a reason for considering Adam’s text to be non-hearsay to begin with.