::::: Don't snatch defeat fromt he jaws of victory. I didn't address the multiple hearsay problem in the example because it's a red herring, and I was only writing about the explanatory sentence that you and I both agree was gobbledigook. It looks like a mis-transcription of something my evidence prof once said - it could be rearranged slightly to form a more accurate statement, but then it would just be redundant. 

 ::::: The statement you quoted is correct and should be removed for the reasons you and I both stated. It takes a "sometimes" and wrongly turns it into an "always." As for your 801(d)(2)(A) strawman, do we have to go there? Okay, let's go there. Of course the ability to cross-examine the declarant isn't the ONLY problem with hearsay; hearsay by in-court witnesses not falling into one of the exceptions are excluded too. But look at all of 801(d), and how many exceptions there are for declarants who are present in court (as parties, or witnesses) and it's hard to say that it isn't significant.  

 ::::: So to conclude, I think you should leave well enough alone. I support your decision to delete that statement.