There’s a rule in the law that requires that the best evidence available to be presented in court. If you know there’s a person with first-hand knowledge of an event, then the testimony from anybody with second-hand knowledge is inadmissible. You can’t have an accountant testifying about a tax return filing in general terms if we know that he can present the physical document – alias the tax return itself – for consideration as evidence.
Technically speaking, virtually all of the first-hand evidence (including the notes created by several major witnesses in the House hearings) in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump is not available. In Trump’s own words, “We have the documents, and we’re not gonna give them to you.” Ditto for all the first-hand witnesses, such as John Bolton – prevented from testifying under oath because of threats from the president, vicious Fox News hosts, and Trump’s rabid fan base.
So, here’s the conundrum: we all know the first-hand evidence exists (e.g., the House witnesses talked about their hand-written notes) which means that any other evidence related thereto is theoretically inadmissible.
Do you see now why President Trump has enforced his universal ban for anybody in the executive department to cooperate with any House investigation or subpoena?
To the point of extreme retaliation against those who crossed the line to speak under oath in the House, saying to anybody with first-hand knowledge: “ignore my very legal executive order and I will fire you. Fire you. The very next day, I will fire you. I will roast you on Twitter and in the media. You will never, ever get a good job anywhere again for the rest of your whole, pathetic lifetime. You want to brand yourself as a despicable traitor? You want to burn the American flag? Go ahead, make my day.”
(The laughable part about off-the-cuff diatribes like this is that they’re scripted: Trump reads them off the teleprompter. Huh? They bangle together Trump’s rambling rants and call that speechmaking?)
Excuse me, but threatening witnesses (or suborning them, which is using coercion to influence an individual’s vote) is a felony. Retaliation against a witness is also a felony.
Like, nobody noticed the very real-time coercion practiced by Trump upon the entire Republican caucus during the trial. Retaliation against Senator Romney and others who straddled the issues before, during, and after the trial? Firing major witnesses in the House hearings (LTC Vindman, EU Ambassador Sondman, and Ukraine Ambassador Yovanovitch, to name only three) within days of being acquitted? Felonies, all.
Withholding evidence in violation of a duly-issued subpoena is also a felony. That’s not just an affront to the prosecution (i.e., your fellow “officers of the court”), to the judge (Chief Justice Roberts himself), and to the whole judicial process – but to Congress and the United States Constitution. The most egregious, aggravating aspect of this blanket denial is Trump taunting all of the above with his Davos declaration, “We have all the documents and you aren’t getting them.”
How more contemptuous of Congress can you possibly get?
If you want to measure if all of this is just retail, hot-air politics, or an actual, felonious act, put yourself in the shoes of some poor sod sitting on evidence that supports the case against Donald R. Trump. You’re a good person and a loyal citizen (likely a lifelong civil servant dedicated to the United States, regardless of who’s in the Oval Office). You’re probably not too far from retirement, either, because only individuals with seniority and rank would be privy to events related to the House hearings.
You’re going to give up your comfy retirement years, for what – to be a splash in Trump’s frying pan? For fifteen seconds of fame, followed by decades of shame? When you damn well know the result (acquittal) is a foregone conclusion?
That’s the game Trump’s playing here. He’s burning at the stake everybody who crosses him, and (literally) promising to crucify anybody else who dares to come forward. Granted, nobody knew the scale of Trump’s retaliation when they were contemplating the articles of impeachment, but – then again – we knew very well exactly what was coming.