Even those (or especially those?) can be defined as hypocrisy from a Christian perspective, given the biblical warnings against false prophets (cf. Robertson saying “the Lord told me” that Romney would win the 2012 election).
Advocating assassination of politicians can obviously be described as hypocrisy given the sixth commandment (cf. Robertson’s “I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it” re assassinating Chavez, plus a similar statement for Maduro). Picture an imam saying things like that and how westerners would take it.
Why do you suppose defamation laws generally allow truth as a defense? One effect is that defamatory statements which can’t be refuted can’t be defended on that ground. I suspect he did believe the statement, but not because he found it in the Bible or did any serious research into it (i.e. he wouldn’t be able to defend it), and if that’s the case, it means he was recklessly spreading a rumor which was prima facie defamatory. That may not meet the technical definition of bearing false witness against one’s neighbor as understood by ancient rabbinical councils, but I’m not sure how interested he was in technicalities like that.
That raises another question: is it hypocritical to preach on the one hand, God hates Haitians enough to smite them with earthquakes and plagues and so on, but we should love them anyway because they’re our neighbors and on the other hand God hates gays enough to smite them with plagues, and we should blame all our terrorist attacks and natural disasters on them? (I don’t see a line from him explicitly saying thou shalt gay thy gay neighbor, but it’s hard not to get the impression that that’s what he wanted.)
And then there’s that, the prosperity gospel. It’s hard to argue he wasn’t at least dabbling in it when he said prayers = money.
His stance on divorce is easy to criticize from a Christian perspective (ironically not so much from a secular one).
And so on…