The Partisan Press loves to leak a story when it can do maximum damage to anyone and anything that stands in the way of Democrat objectives… was this ‘leak’ another coordinated hit?
Bolton and his book are in the news, with a salacious news ‘revelation’ about Ukraine just in time for the Senate Impeachment hearings.
Is it a coincidence? Or is this the Kavanaugh strategy all over again?
The same press that will dismiss very specific and documented questions about conflicts of interest involving Democrats like Biden as ‘debunked’ or ‘conspiracy theories’ seem to have zero objections to running with unverified (and later debunked) stories like Julie Swetnick’s allegations against Kavanaugh and the now-disproven Russian Collusion story.
In fact, the NYT and WaPo earned themselves Pulitzer Prizes over what literally proved to be a bogus story critical of the President.
They should convert those Pulitzer’s to #fakenews awards. How do you win a reporting award for reporting fake news? There should be a recall. Those Pulitzer’s were earned like Liz Warren’s tenure. https://t.co/5Bak6VTQ5G
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) March 24, 2019
So, what about this new Bolton story that already has the squishy Republican Senators chomping at the bit to call Bolton as a witness.
Now that Trump’s team burned much of Schiff’s case to the ground in two short hours of rebuttal, the New York Times rushed to the rescue of the Impeachment project.
Here is how NYTimes pitched their story:
Even Brit Hume is calling BS here:
This came along right about on schedule. https://t.co/cSXZDVKpNB
— Brit Hume (@brithume) January 27, 2020
That’s the first reaction of Mr. ‘Fair and Balanced’ himself, Brit Hume. He DOES admit it’s a big story. But clearly the timing looks suspicious, even to him.
It’s easy to say this conveniently-timed ‘bombshell’ bears the fingerprints of opportunism. There are several competing explanations for what’s REALLY happening here:
Here are the top contenders.
Explanation #1) NYTimes got a tip from some random ‘resister’ who caught wind of this story, and the accuracy is every bit as uncertain as that of the supposed ‘whistleblower’ himself, whose story, as it turns out, did not align with the transcript.
This explanation has the benefit of Occam’s Razor level simplicity. It takes only one motivated leaker.
Explanation #2) NYTimes was cooperating with someone on the inside of the Deep State, working (whether directly or indirectly) in concert with the cabal aligned with Schiff to take down Trump.
One might point to the GAO report that ‘conveniently’ released their report damaging to Trump on the very first day of the Senate hearings, with bold claims that Trump ‘broke the law’ while just as conveniently failing to mention that Obama, by that same standard, had done so at least seven times.
Maybe this could offer a clue…
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) January 27, 2020
Ouch. If this WAS Vindman’s handiwork, he’d best be VERY certain that he hasn’t stumbled into a Canary trap. Or it just might be himself he’s hurting most.
Explanation #3) Bolton, or someone on his team, is creating buzz to sell his book. A question has been raised the answer to which cannot be found anywhere other than within the pages of his book.
Amazing how this happened immediately after The New York Times ran their story, almost like it was coordinated to promote book sales!
This tweet from Stelter was posted 25 minutes ago: pic.twitter.com/PXxWOyLJQu
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) January 27, 2020
The Bolton preorder went up within minutes of me posting this
It’s like magic! https://t.co/YCBiO9NoGv
— Jack Posobiec?? (@JackPosobiec) January 27, 2020
Before rushing off to demand Bolton as a witness, here are a couple of points that were raised that would fall in favor of the President, presenting potential explanations of him exercising power within the lawful scope of his Article II responsibilities.
First, with respect to concerns about Ukranian Corruption:
Bolton's book manuscript clears Trump of all impeachment allegations by demonstrating that the President believed Ukraine interfered in US elections. Given that belief, right or wrong, pressuring Zelensky was completely within the job description of the presidency. #GameOver
— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) January 27, 2020
And second, with respect to claims that this line of questioning was to destroy a 2020 political rival, if we have evidence of his concern predating Biden’s presidential run, that would potentially be a powerful refutation of the central claim Schiff has been making against Trump.
Russiagater kooks losing it after I pointed out that if Trump wanted the ambassador fired in 2018 it completely debunks Schiff’s impeachment argument
Creating an elaborate fantasy world is their psychological coping mechanism for dealing with facts and reality pic.twitter.com/v7lWlwppcy
— Jack Posobiec?? (@JackPosobiec) January 26, 2020