- Regarding John Bolton’s book — Washington is that type of place – anything for a buck
- Will reporting on leaks from Bolton’s book cause Republican managers to accede to witnesses?
- Are the leaks accurate and in context?
- Could this be Democrats walking into trap?
- Give them Bolton and then bring in Inspector General Michael Atkinson “the 18th witness” whose testimony Schiff has hidden, oh, and both Bidens
So last night and all day today we have been hearing about the latest “bombshell” reported as such by the usual suspects. It remains to be seen how close “revelations” are to reality. TownHall provides a straight report based on what the NYT was saying:
‘Bombshell’ Excerpt From Bolton Book Leaks, But The Timing Is Very Suspect Dems Demand Bolton Testify in Impeachment Trial After ‘Bombshell’ Report
An article with the benefit of a bit of time to analyze the matter and give perspective appears at RedState:
Another ‘Bombshell’ Involving Trump and John Bolton Dropped Last Night, Here Are the Details
What we know in our bones is that there is little honor in 90% of Washington “insiders”. Because Washington is primarily made up of Democrats that is not a hard number to defend. But it necessarily includes a large number of Republicans that “make it there”. Even if it is not their home, it is their world of power and attention. The Republicans in the number can be self-absorbed swamp-dwellers insisting on their importance.
There is plenty to make one suspicious of the accuracy of the reporting (it being an NYT “scoop”). There is also the matter of — so what — because: 1) the Bidens are a crime family of influence peddlers on a grand scale, 2) Ukraine was rife with corruption, 3) knowing both key points it was the president’s duty to insure that there was some assurance that the aid was going to a country that was on the up and up, no matter if US co-conspirators with the corruption there were also political rivals.
Are political rivals given free passes or look-aways lest one in authority to do something about corruption be characterized as politically motivated? Politics is often how we find out about corruption and also involved in how things get done about it.
But as for quid-pro-quo, there was none. Ukraine got aid, the president of Ukraine insists there was no pressure, no political announcement from Ukraine designed to embarrass the Bidens was forthcoming. There was never any inordinate action from Trump holding up aid, even if Trump did mouth-off. The lesson, if the mouthing off happened, is do not trust John Bolton with any candid let-your-hair-down bombast. He is a prig and a sniveling money grubber who does not have the country at heart regardless of his foreign policy beliefs.
Presumably knowing the privileges, immunities, necessity of confidentiality in foreign policy discussion, how can someone like Bolton write a book scheduled to be released in a matter of months, so soon after his departure, reveal (or make up) Oval Office confidences? Knowing what is going on in the impeachment process, and knowing the lying ravenous nature of the press, whose side is Bolton on? The side of his bank account it seems. It would have to be about the money because how would his ideas come to be advanced in circles of power given what he has done. Democrats already think his views anathema. Republicans won’t listen to him because no one with foreign policy responsibility will allow him in the room.
I tend to support the idea to the effect . . . OK – it did not have to go this way dear Democrats (because the fallout will not be limited to Biden) — but you get your purported wish for witnesses but no way will you keep Schiff, the whistleblower, the testimony of Inspector General Michael Atkinson “the 18th witness” whose testimony Schiff has hidden, oh, and both Bidens from the witness lineup. Trump legitimately should insist on anti-corruption measures from our foreign aid recipients and the Bidens are both fact witnesses to that effect.
A final memo to John Bolton – the people elected Donald Trump to run foreign policy, consistent with established treaties, not you. You held a confidential advisory capacity. You have not denied the NYT report as to what you said Trump said. Unless you do, you are a punk, an untrustworthy asshole.
I could fantasize that this is all rope-a-dope designed to give the coup de gras to Democrats and your testimony will exonerate Trump. If so I will buy your book and proclaim your honor. But we have seen too many money grubbers and fame-seekers to hold to that. So when you get to the Senate witness stand, if you are not the person of integrity and scope we once gave you credit for being, we hope Trump’s impeachment managers rip you a new one. R Mall
Related reading:
John Bolton Needs to Step up and Go on Maddow to Say If New York Times Leak Is True
The Blasey/Bolton meld’s a hoot