For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

Jay Sekulow makes the case that . . . something. You tell me:

Sekulow read several statements denying Bolton’s allegation that Trump directly tied the withholding of military aid to Ukraine to investigations into his political rivals. Sekulow then sought to emphasize what remains unknown about Bolton’s still-unpublished book, calling it “an unpublished manuscript that maybe some reporters have an idea of maybe what it says.” Sekulow continued: “I mean, that’s what the evidence — if you want to call that evidence — I don’t know what you’d call that — I’d call it inadmissible — but that’s what it is.”

Well, that might be true. I suppose it could be hearsay, but only because courts will reject evidence if a more direct source is available. For example, a book might be inadmissible if the author is available to testify.

Which is true in this case. So I agree with Sekulow: Bolton’s book is inadmissible. The only proper source for this evidence is testimony from Bolton himself.

Thanks, Jay! I’m glad we’re all in agreement about this.