Legal expert uses OSU wrestling scandal to explain ‘hearsay’ to non-lawyer Jim Jordan

GOP Rep. Jim Jordan's alleged sex scandal cover-up while working as an assistant wrestling coach at Ohio State University was publicly shoved in his face after he attempted to deflect from Tuesday's bombshell testimony against Donald Trump.

As the ranking member on House Judiciary Committee, Jordan's office controls the "Judiciary GOP" Twitter account, which argued, "It’s literally all hearsay evidence. What a joke."

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti wrote, "You might want to read Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). Her testimony regarding Trump’s statements would be admissible in a criminal case against Trump."

Republicans put Jordan on the Judiciary Committee even though he never sat for the bar exam.

Attorney Ken White, a partner at Brown, White & Osborn, who blogs under the popular "Popehat" handle on Twitter, brought up Jordan's OSU scandal while explaining hearsay to the non-lawyer.

READ: A 'shocking betrayal': Democrat blasts 'the transparently grotesque behavior' of 'child-like' Trump

Multiple former OSU wrestlers have alleged Jordan has lied about his knowledge of sex abuse by Richard Strauss, who was the team doctor. A referee has alleged Jordan admitted knowing about the abuse.

One former wrestler alleged Jordan called him "crying, groveling" to ask him to help with the sex abuse cover-up.

White retweeted the hearsay analysis by the GOP Judiciary account and said "only some of it is hearsay."

"Need help understanding the difference? I'm here to help you. I'm hoping to help you," he wrote.

"So if a player comes up to you and says 'hey coach I went to the team doctor for a bloody nose and he grabbed my genitals instead,' that's not hearsay because he's not repeating an out-of-court statement, it's something that person perceived," White said, appearing to refer to allegations against Jordan by former OSU wrestler Tito Vazquez.

"But if people came to you and said 'hey coach a bunch of people are complaining that the team doctor is perving on them in the showers and doing gratuitous genital exams,' that would be hearsay, because they're talking about other people's statements," White explained.

"Now, say you were being sued for something -- say, some sort of grotesque dereliction of duty for failing to report or stop the serial sexual abuse of people under your care -- and a witness said 'I told coach about it and he said 'I have nothing to do with this.'' That's not hearsay either, because in that case you're a party opponent and a statement of a party opponent is not hearsay. Just like first-hand witness testimony about what Trump said would be a statement of a party opponent in, say, a prosecution of Trump," White explained.

White also thought Trump could be facing a perp walk for incitement.

NOW WATCH: ‘Off the charts bonkers’ MSNBC John Heileman tries to make sense of the ‘craziest’ testimony ever

‘Off the charts bonkers’ MSNBC John Heileman tries to make sense of the ‘craziest’ testimony everwww.youtube.com