Wednesday, January 29, 2020

Bolton's Book: Boom Or Bust?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

The New York Times, this week, believed they had some information that could hurt the President, so they ran with it---and published it.

We know it as "Bolton's Book" ---former national security adviser John Bolton, following being fired from his job, has written a book that, the Times says, will prove that President Trump did, in fact, withhold military aid to force Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.

The Department of Justice has responded forcefully.

Here's what they had to say.

Be informed.

The Department of Justice is shooting down The New York Times report regarding John Bolton's new book.

A leaked manuscript, (the book is due out in March) the Times says, reveals that the former national security adviser suggests that President Trump did withhold military aid to Ukraine trying to force them to investigate the Bidens.

Democrats launched their impeachment inquiry against Trump claiming he abused his power when he asked Ukraine President Zelensky to investigate the Bidens' ties to a Ukrainian gas company.

Another revelation in the leaked manuscript, the Times claims, is that Bolton told Attorney General William Barr he had concerns about Trump's relationship with autocrats, such as the leaders of Turkey and China, and it appeared he had an influence on investigations.

Well, AG Bill Barr read the NYT story. He is not known for mincing words.


The DOJ responds to the newspaper story.


The DOJ posted this on social media:

The New York Times knows the Democrat's impeachment ship is sinking under the weight of truth.



This was, most likely, another last gasp attempt to remove a sitting president from both the office and from the 2020 ballot.

It's John Bolton's attempt to sell more books.

While Bolton may succeed, The New York Times has failed again to "get" the President.

Trump's defense team is shooting holes in the Democrat's impeachment attempt.


Monday and Tuesday's presentation by the Trump defense team shot holes in the entire case for impeachment. In particular, Harvard law Professor Alan Dershowitz---a Democrat who voted for Hillary---told the Senate, "I am here, not to defend the President, I'm a Democrat who voted for Hillary, but to defend the Constitution."

He proceeded to present, constitutionally, why, even if the President did all the things the Democrats are accusing him of doing, he can not be impeached, because none of it is impeachable under the Constitution.


Mitt Romney's revenge?


Senator Mitt Romney has never liked Trump---for a myriad of reasons. Romney lost the presidency. Trump won, and will likely win again in 2020---unless the Democrats can remove him from office, and the 2020 ballot.

Among other issues, Romney has appeared at times to side more with the Left than the Right.

Now that the Bolton book matter is on the table, Romney has renewed his call for witnesses in the failing Democrat impeachment attempt---particularly calling for Bolton to appear before the Senate.

Republican Georgia Senator Kelly Loeffler and her husband are friends with the Romneys. However, she called out "friend Mitt" after he began calling for Bolton to be heard in the impeachment trials.


CNN reported this:

In a tweet, Loeffler leveled an accusation at Romney, saying, "After 2 weeks, it's clear that Democrats have no case for impeachment. Sadly, my colleague @SenatorRomney wants to appease the left by calling witnesses who will slander the @realDonaldTrump during their 15 minutes of fame. The circus is over. It's time to move on!"
She's right on all counts. But the Democrats and Mitt, seem to enjoy the circus.

Cruz's clarification.


The mainstream news media print millions of words every day, while the broadcast media makes a lot of noise, so we're left to sort through it all.

We try to do some sorting out every day in this Faith and Freedom Daily article and on our daily live radio program. We do so from a biblical perspective of the day's news items---whatever they may be.

In our sorting, I discovered that Sen. Ted Cruz---who is sitting, in person, through all the impeachment efforts, has teamed up Michael Knowles to produced a daily podcast about the impeachment events of the day.


In only a few days, the podcast has gone viral with over a half-million downloads---which surpasses the New York Times' own podcast "The Daily" in listeners.

In one podcast, Ted reported that he could see senator's "eyes glazing over" because House managers repeated themselves so often.

This is a link to Ted's podcast.

Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Faithful.


2 comments:

  1. The Democrats, The New York Times, and Mitt Romney... TRUMPED AGAIN !!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. In Truth...
    - The Ukraine has a well documented history of Corruption. One giant company known for the greatest level of corruption put the son of the Vice President of America on their board and paid him Millions of dollars even though he had no qualifications or experience to do so nor did he even speak Ukrainian.

    - The Ukraine Attorney General was investigating this company for its corrupt activities and the U.S. Vice President of the last administration made a surprise threat/shakedown to withhold over a Billion dollars in U.S. aid if Ukraine failed to fire that Attorney General who was investigating the company that was paying his son millions. Ukraine resisted so he gave them a 6 hour window. They caved and fired their Attorney General to avoid having the desperately needed aid withheld. (clearly a quid-quo-pro) which Joe Biden later bragged about in detail during a speech. Did they know the VP’s son was paid royally to be on the board of that company? Of course they did.

    - The President of the United States has the primary responsibility for all policy and communications to other nations selected to receive foreign aid, most especially as a special anti-corruption agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine.

    QUESTION about truth: Should the President avoid asking questions about the clear appearance of a conflict of interest (e.g. corruption) if a person involved in that conflict of interest might possibly be his opponent in an upcoming election?
    Does the possibility of being a Presidential candidate give a special pass to any individuals potentially illegal or corrupt practices "because" the person responsible to investigate corruption "might" be a political opponent?
    Question: Is it a crime for the President to try to gain clarification regarding these clear appearances of corruption "because" one individual involved is trying to become the President's future political opponent?
    Honest well considered answers to these questions clearly “NO”.
    If in fact a man serving as Vice President was guilty of using his power to manipulate his personal gain, is it not important that the American People know this before considering that man for the highest office of the land? (of course it is)
    Is it possible that the "investigation" would show this man's innocence, thereby clearing the doubt? (yes, and if he is innocent he should welcome the investigation to achieve exoneration)

    SHOULD THE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNTRY AVOID HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND DUTY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION IF MEETING THAT RESONSIBLITY MIGHT TURN OUT TO BENEFIT HIM IN A FUTURE ELECTION? (How could an honest rational person consider answering Yes to this question?)

    Withholding aid for the "benefit" of the USA has been a common practice of the State Department throughout past presidencies. Never before has it been used as a political tool to remove a duly elected President from office OR to “ban his name” from future ballots!

    So…if and when the President might have “thought” that it might right to withhold aid to incent Ukraine to actually investigate corruption by a past Vice President who “might” become is opponent in a future election; that “thought” would be common to any standing President. If that president was to verbalize that thought to a trusted confident…does that constitute a crime?

    Those who hate President Trump and want to destroy his presidency have spent 35 million dollars of taxpayers money and over 3 years only fail to come with any charges other than what the President “said” or “thought”…but not what he “did”. In fact, the President did not withhold aid for the purpose for which he is accused, because if he had he would not have given the aid “within the originally prescribed deadline time”.

    Does Bolton know all this?....”Of course he does”

    When will the adults who left the room come back and an end to this vengeful circus?

    Truth is a lonely warrior

    G>T>

    ReplyDelete

Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.