Hannity Has No Idea What Hearsay Means

Hannity Has No Idea What Hearsay Means November 20, 2019

Welcoming Fox News legal “analyst” Gregg Jarrett on his show to discuss the testimony of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman before the impeachment inquiry and he showed either his rank dishonesty or utter cluelessness by dismissing everything Vindman said as “all hearsay” that would not be admissible in court.

SEAN HANNITY (HOST): I honestly find this to be the biggest, most colossal waste of time, and I watch the media breathlessly acting like it’s something when I see nothing, Gregg. There’s nothing here. Read the transcript, none of this testimony matters in the least…

GREGG JARRETT: Vindman thought that he’s above the Secretary of State, above the president, he’s some super-special expert to which all, including Trump, should defer. And — and the interesting moment occurred when the witness was reminded about how he touted, or more likely exaggerated his unparalleled credentials and authorities during his deposition, and I’ll quote him.

“I’m the director for Ukraine, I’m responsible for Ukraine, I’m the most knowledgeable. I’m the authority for Ukraine for the National Security Council and the White House,” — my word, I mean, the self-puffery was un-becoming, but it really spoke volumes about what motivated Vindman, when, you know, the president had the audacity to conduct foreign policy in a way that this mid-level bureaucrat NSC staffer did not pre-approve. How important was Vindman in the White House? He never so much as met the president, so that — that explains his testimony

HANNITY: It’s all hearsay. It — none of it would be admissible.

Um, no. Vindman listened to the phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky on July 25th, which was the subject about which he testified. That is the precise opposite of hearsay, it’s direct testimony of an event to which he was a personal, first-person witness. Is he lying or stupid? As usual, the answer is both.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!