This weekend, John Bolton teamed with Sen. Schumer by saying that President Trump “told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens.”

This isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. The overwhelming evidence disproves Ambassador Bolton’s accusation. First, the transcript shows that aid wasn’t discussed during the call. Next, President Trump and President Zelenskiy talked about investigating Hunter Biden. Third, Lt. Col. Vindman testified that the transcript of the July 25th phone call was “essentially accurate.” Fourth, Ambassador Sondland admitted under cross-examination from Rep. Mike Turner that he just presumed that there was a quid pro quo:

It’s understandable that Ambassador Bolton would make this statement. He wants to sell lots of books. Selling out President Trump is a great way of generating that interest. It’s understandable why Sen. Schumer believes, at least publicly, that Bolton is telling the truth. He wants to force the calling of witnesses.

Mostly, Sen. Schumer wants to force some Republican senators into a difficult vote. He wants to pressure them as much as possible because he wants to be the majority leader. Also, he wants to keep 3 of his senators — Klobuchar, Sanders and Warren — off the campaign trail, especially Sanders. If people can’t see that the DNC is trying to rig the election against Sen. Sanders, then they’re blind as a bat.

The NYTimes article reads mostly like a gossip column, which is what Bolton’s book is likely to be. That isn’t unique to Mr. Bolton. Books written by DC insiders frequently are about gossip. It’s usually portrayed as giving readers an inside look into an administration.

Sen. Schumer knows that the transcript is the most accurate information on what President Trump’s policies were. Multiple people on the call said it’s accurate. Nowhere did President Trump connect lethal military supplies with investigations. Ambassador Sondland verified that there wasn’t a connection. At what point does this information reach a tipping point?

At what point should common sense and verified proof overtake gossip? At what point should we tell Mr. Bolton to leave the stage and tell him he should peddle his gossip elsewhere?

UPDATE: President Trump has weighed in on the Bolton manuscript:

3 Responses to “John Bolton’s publicity stunt?”

  • eric z says:

    Gary, Schumer is one of the judges. He wears that hat. It is Schiff who is prosecuting. You appear to be guessing about Schumer; or have you seen evidence of Bolton-Schumer cooperation? What? This is a very important point. Gary, I do not think very much of Schumer either. Itruly would prefer a progressive in leadership, instead. (I may have to wait until next January to have a progressive in charge, White House, both Houses of Congress.) But what’s your evidence of any Bolton-Schumer back-room and/or public cooperation with each other?

  • Chad Q says:

    Sheez, Eric wants proof of Schumer and Bolton’s collusion yet he takes Schumer and Schiff’s word on Trump’s so called illegal activities even though they haven’t been able to prove anything in 3 years. If you want progressive leadership, move to a country with that kind of failed leadership because the majority doesn’t want it here even thought the MSM is pushing hard for it.

  • eric z/ says:

    Chad Q. – A much more credible view of what Bolton wants from this – check out Juan Cole’s posting at Informed Comment. And guys, what does Bolton get if there is this Bolton – Schumer conspiracy Chad is postulating? What’s his payoff? I see each against the other and God against them all – VP ain’t near as neat as P.

Leave a Reply