I seem to recall somewhere that hearsay is an out of court statement (not under oath) which is offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Or something like that.
For Lott to say he heard Hussein say that people should not own guns IS hearsay. That's what hersay is: person X claiming that person Y said "123".
No court here of course, but if you come to me and say that you heard Bob say that yes, he does indeed owe Sam the $50 dollars...that is hearsay.
It would also be a clear declaration against interest...which the alleged Hussein comment is not.
A declaration against interest is defined as "a statement made by someone unavailable as a witness that is against that person's own interests (as pecuniary or property interests) or may subject that person to liability"
Again, that's just my read on it.
Admission against interest of a party-opponent is different from a declaration against penal interest. For one thing, it doesn’t have to be an admission of a crime or action involving moral turpitude. Also, he doesn’t have to be unavailable.
For Dr. Lott, this is not second hand. Dr. Lott was there. He heard Obama say this. He could testify in a court as to what he heard Obama say. He could be cross examined as to exactly what happened. An attorney could ask him questions about it, e.g., "Where were you when you heard this? What was Mr.Obama wearing? Did anyone else hear it?" etc.
Neither you nor I could testify about this, even though we heard Dr. Lott claim this on the radio broadcast on the internet, because we did not witness it first hand.
Whether or not something is hearsay does not depend on whether it was offered under oath. That's putting the cart before the horse. Think about it. If that is what makes something hearsay, then all information is hearsay until it is offered under oath. If hearsay is not admissible, then all information is inadmissible and can never be offered in court.