The Great One, Mark Levin, Expertly Dismantles the Bolton News in a Twitter Blitz

The media has been positively foaming at the mouth all day after receiving this great gift in the form of a New York Times report about former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s forthcoming book. According to The Times, Bolton writes in his new book that President Trump had told him he planned to continue freezing $400 million in aid to Ukraine until they agreed to help investigate the Bidens.

The Great One, Mark Levin, says not so fast and after a series of tweets, the big red, shiny, balloon that flew so high this morning, is lying on the ground in a heap. First, he notes that this really doesn’t change anything.

If every word of this New York Times story is true, which I doubt as it’s another politically timed leak, how does this change anything? As a matter of FACT, there was no quid pro quo. And there’s still no evidence to the contrary.

Bolton’s book was obviously timed for maximum impact & sales. Having written 8 books, I can tell you that it’s extraordinary that an author could complete a book in about 2 months and the published release it in 3-4 months.

Bolton had help. And it was all deliberate.

In approximately 6 months since departing the White House, Bolton’s book will be in bookstores. And now the litigation strategy makes sense. First, he went to court to seek a judge’s opinion on whether he could testify in the House.

Then, he does an about face, announcing through counsel that he’s available to testify should the Senate ask him. Therefore, he sought to delay any testimony while still writing his book, but after he completed it – submitted it for NSC review, he became available for the trial.

And he became available because he knew he’d be criticized for holding back his allegations until the book’s release. Moreover, the strategy also maximizes publicity for the book. The cover of the book is presently highlighted on Drudge and through the media.

He hits the Senators who’ve gone wobbly over the news like Sens. Collins (ME) and Romney (UT).

If the GOP falls for this they’ll lose the Senate. Focus on the case the president’s lawyers are finally able to make. This leak to the New York Times is intended to change the narrative. The Democrats still have no case. FACT: there was no quid pro quo.

He addresses Bolton lawyer’s faux anger over the leak. He charged that “the prepublication review process has been corrupted.” This is precisely what Bolton and Cooper had counted on.

Let me get this straight. John Bolton and his lawyer Chuck Cooper submitted the book manuscript to the NSC for review, which is notoriously known for leaking, on the eve of the impeachment trial, and they’re now surprised about a cherry-picked leak? We are left with a politically-motivated, last-minute, cherry-picked leak from anonymous sources to the Trump-hating New York Times. And now the media attention is focused on the Democrat demands, in hopes of turning a handful of Republicans susceptible to these tactics to join the Democrats in a call for witnesses — which, of course, the House Democrats opposed during their impeachment inquiry.

This is the best of them all.

And as for the sources, who benefits from this? The public needs to know who’s leaking so we can make a judgment about their credibility. Who benefits? The publisher, Bolton, the Democrats, and the Trump-haters burrowed in at the White House.

Summing up:

What strikes me is that not a single person has alleged what Bolton is said to allege or corroborated it. And the New York Times doesn’t cite any. The Times dismisses top officials, like Pompeo, Mulvaney, and Barr, who contradict what the article alleges. The article is a hodgepodge of cherry-picked leaks from anonymous sources, inferences, etc. intended to drive the Democrat narrative during the impeachment trial.

Having trashed Bolton throughout his career, including blocking his confirmation as ambassador to the UN, the Democrats now love Bolton. His testimony is crucial (except in the House).