January 27, 2020 – Democrats now demand that former National Security Adviser John Bolton testify at the Senate Impeachment hearings after a New York Times report that Bolton’s new book claims Trump tied Ukraine aid to “investigations.” Predictably the ‘scoop’ comes from Maggie Haberman of the New York Times (NYT). Haberman has been used in the past for strategic leaks by Democrats and the Intelligence Community (IC). Recall the Russia Collusion hoax? And let’s not forget what was exposed in the Podesta emails from Wikileaks about Maggie Haberman relative to collusion with the Clinton campaign in 2016.
Haberman was characterized as a ‘friendly’ journalist, Hillary referred to her as a ‘pet,’ and she claimed she was someone for whom they could tee up stories that were favorable to the Clinton campaign and contained Clinton’s talking points.
Laura Egan of NBC jumped on the story and published an article entitled ‘Democrats Demand Bolton Testify After Report His Book Says Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Biden Probe‘ the article says:
Democrats stepped up their calls Sunday night for former national security adviser John Bolton to testify at President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial after an explosive report alleged that in his unpublished book, he said Trump personally tied aid for Ukraine to an investigation of the Bidens — an account that conflicts with the president’s.
‘John Bolton has the evidence,’ Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., tweeted.
According to the manuscript, as reported by The New York Times on Sunday night, Trump told Bolton that nearly $400 million in aid to Ukraine would not be released until it offered assistance with investigations of Democratic targets, including former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.
NBC News has not seen a copy of the manuscript or verified the report, which cited multiple sources familiar with Bolton’s account.
The contents of the manuscript were described as a rough account of how Bolton would testify should he be called as a witness in the Senate trial. The prospect of new witnesses has been viewed as unlikely given most Republicans’ reluctance to accept additional testimony.
Trump addressed the report in a series of tweets Sunday night. ‘I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens. In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book,’ Trump said.
Hill Democrats said Sunday that the new report highlighted the urgency of a Senate request for Bolton’s testimony — a move that would require several GOP votes.
‘It’s up to four Senate Republicans to ensure that John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, and the others with direct knowledge of President Trump’s actions testify in the Senate trial,’ Schumer tweeted. Mulvaney is Trump’s acting chief of staff. – NBC News
So essentially this means taking Bolton’s words at face value. It doesn’t appear that he has any documents or video evidence that could back up his claims. This is called hearsay, which means unverified information heard or received from another, or rumor.
Fox News reported in an article entitled ‘Bolton’s Manuscript Leaks as Memoir Pre-Orders Begin on Amazon; Trump Fires Back‘ that says:
Former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s team was under fire from the White House and conservative commentators Sunday night, after a report in The New York Times revealed a bombshell excerpt from Bolton’s forthcoming book that could prove pivotal in President Trump’s impeachment trial — just as the Amazon product page for the book went live.
The drama began earlier Sunday when the Times exclusively reported that Bolton’s manuscript included a claim that Trump explicitly linked a hold on Ukraine aid to an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden. Trump told Bolton in August, according to a transcript of Bolton’s forthcoming book reviewed by the Times, ‘that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens.’
The Times further claimed Bolton had shared a manuscript of his forthcoming book with ‘close associates’ — prompting Bolton’s team to deny the claim, and assert that the National Security Council’s [NSC’s] review process of pending manuscripts is ‘corrupted’ and prone to leaks.
A ‘pre-publication review’ at the NSC, which functions as the White House’s national security forum, is standard for any former government officials who held security clearances and publicly write or speak publicly about their official work. The review typically would focus on ferreting out any classified or sensitive material in advance of publication, and could take from days to months.
Trump fired back on Twitter on Sunday to refute Bolton’s claims, saying he ‘NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens.’ Trump went on to accuse Bolton of trying to ‘sell a book,’ noting that Bolton did not complain publicly or privately about the aid holdup ‘at the time of his very public termination.’
Other conservatives also suggested Sunday evening that Bolton’s team may have leaked the information themselves while using the media as unwitting tools to juice their book sales. Online merchants began taking orders for Bolton’s book, entitled ‘The Room Where It Happened,’ just as the Times’ story broke, with a March release date.
‘A former advisor to the President and the NY Times turned impeachment hearings into a marketing strategy and there are still people wandering around wondering how we ever ended up with Donald Trump,’ wrote podcast host Stephen Miller.
‘Just like James Comey, John Bolton is trying to get rich off of a lie- and leak-fueled campaign to overturn the 2016 election results,’ wrote The Federalist’s Sean Davis.’I suspect it will work out as well as all of Bolton’s other wars.’ – Fox News
These kinds of self-serving leaks have been an ongoing issue that has plagued the Trump administration from the beginning.
A former advisor to the President and the NY Times turned impeachment hearings into a marketing strategy and there are still people wandering around wondering how we ever ended up with Donald Trump.
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) January 27, 2020
I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that Pearson, publisher of the Obamas, James Comey and Andrew McCabe among others, is the publisher working with John Bolton.
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
This could just be a marketing scheme by Bolton, who has a financial stake in the matter and is already starting to see book sales fly off the charts.
Now Kristina Wong and Joel Pollak of Breitbart News are reporting in an article entitled ‘Source: Alexander Vindman’s Brother, Yevgeny, Clears Publications by NSC Officials‘ that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s brother could be involved:
A source close to the Trump administration informs Breitbart News that Army Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, a senior ethics lawyer for the National Security Council (NSC), is in charge of reviewing all publications by current and former NSC officials.
The official added that Yevgeny Vindman could have seen former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s draft manuscript after it was submitted for pre-publication review at the end of December.
The review is a standard process that allows the NSC to review book manuscripts, op-eds, or any other material for any classified material to be eliminated before publication.
The New York Times reported Sunday evening that Bolton’s draft book manuscript, which had been submitted to the NSC for prepublication review on Dec. 30, alleged that President Trump told Bolton in August 2019 that he wanted to withhold security assistance to Ukraine until it agreed to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, among others.
It was not clear if the Times had seen the Bolton manuscript; its sources were ‘multiple people’ who ‘described Mr. Bolton’s account of the Ukraine affair.’
Bolton’s lawyer, Chuck Cooper, issued a statement in which he said: ‘It is clear, regrettably, from The New York Times article published today that the prepublication review process has been corrupted.’ He did not confirm or deny the Times’ reporting on the content of the manuscript.
Yevegeny Vindman is the identical twin brother of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who is one of Democrats’ key witnesses in the impeachment of President Donald Trump. The brothers have offices across from each other.
Alexander Vindman told the House Intelligence Committee in his closed-door deposition that he told his brother, Yevgeny, about President Trump’s July 25th call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
In November, Yevgeny Vindman attended his brother’s public testimony at the House impeachment inquiry.
The Wall Street Journaldescribed Vindman as ‘an NSC lawyer handling ethics issues.’ Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman described his brother as the ‘lead ethics official’ at the NSC. A U.S. Office of Government Ethics web page, updated on Friday, identifies Yevegeny Vindman as the ‘Alternate Designated Agency Ethics Official’ for the NSC. – Breitbart News
One wonders who did the leaking regarding the book to Haberman and the NYT. Is it possible Vindman’s brother saw the book during a routine review and decided to reach out to the Times to leak some of the claims allegedly in the book?
According to John Bolton’s attorney Chuck Cooper:
On December 30, 2019, I submitted, on behalf of Ambassador Bolton, a book manuscript to the National Security Council’s Records Management Division for standard prepublication security review for classified information. As explained in my cover letter to Ellen J. Knight, Senior Director of the Records Management Division, we submitted the manuscript notwithstanding our firm belief that the manuscript contained no information that could reasonably be considered classified and on the assurance that the ‘process of reviewing submitted materials is restricted to those career government officials and employees regularly charged with responsibility for such reviews’ and the ‘contents of Ambassador Bolton’s manuscript will not be reviewed or otherwise disclosed to any personals not regularly involved in that process. A copy of my December 30 letter is attached. It is clear, regrettably, from The New York Times article published today that the prepublication review process has been corrupted and that information has been disclosed by persons other than those properly involved in reviewing the manuscript. – Chuck Cooper
One must wonder who benefits from such strategic leaking?
Bolton's book leaked to the NYT.
Bolton's lawyer said they gave the manuscript to the NSC ONLY
Andrew Peek was 'removed from the NSC last week for 'security reasons
Now we find out Lt. Col. Vindman's brother works at the NSC clearing publications hhmmmhttps://t.co/6NLM2YqkTB
— DARREL NAY #QAnon 🐼🐼🐼🐼🐼 (@freenaynow) January 27, 2020
Of course the Washington Post jumped on the story as well:
Trump denies telling Bolton that Ukraine aid was tied to investigations, as explosive book claiming otherwise leaks https://t.co/1kYs1nS8VF
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) January 27, 2020
JUST IN, per @meridithmcgraw:
An NSC spokesman says Bolton's manuscript is still under review: "No White House personnel outside NSC have reviewed the manuscript.”
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) January 27, 2020
It seems to follow the exact same playbook as the prior attempts to conduct a soft coup against President Trump. Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report showed that improper contacts with the media was used as a way to bolster their own sources. The FBI was using claims in what is called ‘circular’ reporting. The source is the same but the media reports seem to provide corroborating evidence. As was demonstrated, there were no extra sources; the media had the same source as the FBI.
Author Diane West of the Epoch Times does a wonderful job describing the communist tactics being used in her article ‘The Patterns of Communist Subversion Behind Impeachment Inquiry‘ that goes into great detail:
The towering anti-communist dissident Vladimir Bukovsky was laid to rest in a London cemetery on Nov. 19. In Washington, American democracy threw dirt on itself.
Impervious to the irony, the Democrats of the House of Representatives staged another fake impeachment ‘show trial’ in its coup, like no other, to thwart the anti-communist will of the American electorate that sent Donald Trump to the White House.
The battle isn’t drawn in such terms; they have been taken from us. But to understand the desperate, unceasing efforts to unseat President Trump requires a longer lens on recent events, one that can focus on over a century of what Whittaker Chambers described as ‘the forces of that great socialist revolution, which, in the name of liberalism, spasmodically, incompletely, somewhat formlessly, but always in the same direction, has been inching its ice cap over the nation.’
Chambers was writing in the 1950s, when the socialist ‘New Deal’ was only two decades old. In 2016, six decades past Chambers, as the socialist ice cap had all but completely smothered our democratic republic, Trump won the presidency. With his agenda to save the United States by restoring the nation-state, Trump became a one-man counter-revolutionary army.
The revolutionaries within—leading figures in what is known as ‘the Swamp’—responded as true Marxists do: by any means necessary. And why not? Their ideological roots in varieties of Marxism are documented in my short book, ‘The Red Thread.’
The dangers they pose in these end-stages of our democratic republic cannot be overstated. That makes Election 2020 our D-Day for retaking our Swamp-occupied continent.
Maybe the second time around, a wiser, battle-tested counter-revolutionary Trump will call in reserves who actually support him. This is precisely what our deeply embedded and powerful communistic enemies, confronting this unexpected American ‘insurgency,’ fear more than anything.
Reluctant or unable to imagine the war in these terms, Republicans have rallied as misdirected. In Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D-Calif.) kangaroo court of an ‘impeachment inquiry,’ they didn’t call out the treason all around, or even stand up on their hind legs and ask Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman to confirm the identity of the ‘whistleblower’ whom he admitted leaking the Trump–Zelensky phone call to.
While Republicans scored the easy points on contradictions in witness testimonies, many undoubtedly perjurious, contrary to the appalling case of Roger Stone, however, perjury charges will never be referred for indictment, let alone go to trial.
However satisfying, like junk food, in the moment, none of these accrued debating points will cause the House to reject the coup in its impeachment stage; nor will they arouse the sleeping American people to the highest stages of concern for their republic.
Perhaps Republicans came closest to exposing one of the underlying Big Lies of the impeachment inquiry when Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) zeroed in on Vindman’s attitude toward alleged bona fide high crimes and misdemeanors committed by Joe Biden, according to Biden’s own, uncoerced videotaped confession.
Sounding like the mob capo Schiff channeled when the House Intelligence Committee chairman (never, ever forget) read to the American peoplea call transcript he had made up, Biden had bragged that as vice president, he gave Ukraine six hours to fire the prosecutor investigating corruption at Burisma, a Ukrainian oil and gas company that employed Biden’s son Hunter on its board for an estimated $80,000 per month, or else—the ‘or else’ being the loss of $1 billion in U.S. aid. Talk about ‘quid pro quo.’ Talk about corruption. Talk about bribery. Talk about mixing personal gain with the affairs of state. – Diane West, The Epoch Times
This is important to keep in mind. From the beginning of the bizarre claims from the alleged whistleblower or leaker who had no first hand evidence, to the IC Inspector General Michael Atkinson who changed the FISA whistleblower form that required first hand evidence to allow second hand or hearsay evidence — these details all indicate a pattern of misconduct.
This most recent nonsense article by lying Maggie Haberman is solely meant to try and force the republicans into allowing witnesses, plain and simple. @RepRatcliffe @Jim_Jordan @JaySekulow well if that's they want to play it, let's start with these, the originators of this sham pic.twitter.com/fjQaKpIiIL
— Roscoe B Davis🎖⭐️⭐️⭐️ (@RoscoeBDavis1) January 27, 2020
If they want to cry that the corruption with the Biden's is a conspiracy theory, then I have a list of other witnesses to drag out and get them under oath. James Biden, Frank Biden, Valerie Biden Owens, Dr. Howard Krein, Unity Stoakes, and this is the short list.
— Roscoe B Davis🎖⭐️⭐️⭐️ (@RoscoeBDavis1) January 27, 2020
Roscoe makes some great points here.
These people really do not want to be investigated that I promise you. Way too many ties to Government funding and millions in campaign money. pic.twitter.com/uLmWD0rbH6
— Roscoe B Davis🎖⭐️⭐️⭐️ (@RoscoeBDavis1) January 27, 2020
— The Dirty Truth “Josh” (@AKA_RealDirty) January 27, 2020
— The Dirty Truth “Josh” (@AKA_RealDirty) January 27, 2020
There appears to be a double standard at play here and a pattern of using strategic leaks to the media in an attempt to craft a narrative that President Trump did something wrong. This was outlined clearly in the Horowitz report and unfortunately it does not appear to have been addressed properly by these agencies who are still breaking the law to serve their own political agenda.
For years, the Democrats have claimed John Bolton is an untrustworthy war hawk but today they claim his word is above reproach, proving once again that Democrats will adopt whatever narrative they believe will bolster their power.
This story is still developing, please check back for updates.