In an effort to aid Democrats in prolonging the Senate impeachment trial, on Monday, all three networks seized on a supposed “bombshell” – though unverified – claim in former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s upcoming memoir. All the sensational coverage clearly designed to turn up the pressure on Republican senators to call witnesses.
Opening NBC’s Today show, co-host Savannah Guthrie proclaimed: “Breaking overnight, bombshell. Former National Security Advisor John Bolton ready to turn on the President as news leaks from his explosive new book about what he claims really happened with Ukraine.” She excitedly wondered: “Will he testify?”
Considering Bolton hasn’t actually uttered a single word about this, it’s certainly premature to declare that he’s “ready to turn on the President.”
Introducing the report that followed minutes later, Guthrie again gushed over the “explosive report” and argued that Bolton must know “what really happened in Ukraine.” White House correspondent Kristen Welker stuck to the talking points of the day: “That new book by John Bolton is called The Room Where it Happened, and it could be a bombshell.”
As Welker continued to hype the “explosive new account” the headline on screen blared: “Bolton Bombshell to Impact Impeachment?; Book Claims Increases Pressure on Republicans in Witness Battle.”
The reporter explained:
As first reported by The New York Times, Bolton, in an unpublished book manuscript, writes President Trump told him last August he wanted to continue freezing nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine until Ukrainian officials announced investigations into the Bidens.
Leading off ABC’s Good Morning America, co-host George Stephanopoulos enthused: “Also this morning, a bombshell in the impeachment trial of President Trump. The stunning new report about John Bolton directly contradicts Trump’s defense…”
Touting the “bombshell report upending the impeachment trial of President Trump” as he teed up the later segment, Stephanopoulos emphasized how “this key witness sought by Democrats” was “directly contradicting a core plank of the President’s defense.”
Chief White House correspondent Jon Karl asserted: “The report overnight in The New York Times shows just how key he [Bolton] may be to the case against the President.” The on-screen headline shouted: “Bolton Bombshell; Report: New Book Claims Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Investigations.”
Making sure to adhere to the liberal media narrative, co-host Anthony Mason started CBS This Morning with: “Bolton’s bombshell. The former National Security Advisor reportedly says President Trump told him Ukraine would get no military aid without investigating Joe Biden and his son. How this could affect the impeachment trial?”
Like his NBC and ABC colleagues, co-host Tony Dokoupil set up the coverage by declaring: “A startling new report could upend the impeachment trial.” Correspondent Nancy Cordes told viewers: “Bolton drops the bombshell in an unpublished manuscript for his forthcoming book.” The headline on screen read: “Bolton’s Bombshell; NYT: Fmr. Adviser Ties POTUS to Ukraine Aid Freeze Over Biden.”
Obviously, this “bombshell” is of no larger caliber or throw-weight than any of the others. Already know was that Trump wanted Ukraine to complete the investigation Biden extorted them into ending. Already know was that corruption was a major problem and their was EVIDENCE that Biden was involved. Already known by some was that the actual investigation was restarted BEFORE Trump asked about it. Also already know was that Ukraine did not know the aid had been frozen and did not learn it was until after it had been released, so there was no possible quid pro quo. But, just because it was known does not mean Democrats would admit or let their bloodthirsty constituents know about it.
The reason to deny more witnesses; witnesses the Democrats could have had at any time had they only adequately voted on the impeachment inquiry and subpoenaed the desired witnesses is to not give this farce any more credibility than it deserves (ZERO) and reduce the time wasted on its theater. However, calling Bolton or Mulvaney is no big deal; this assures Schiff, the Vindman boys, Joe and Hunter Biden and Michael Atkinson are also called, to expose the corruption and formulation of this coup against the United States.
@Deplorable Me:
Let’s not forget Alexandra Chalupa who bragged how she worked with the DNC to help dig up dirt on Trump being provided by Ukraine even prior to the 2016 election.
Also don’t forget there has been no claim by any of the news outlets that they have seen the actual transcript of the bo.
What should bother all (but doesn’t) is how Bolton’s own lawyer is complaining about the leaks emanating from the NSC (where the Vindman twins work and have offices across the West Wing hall from each other.)
Not jumping into the trench, time after time after time they turn out to be so disappointed. The defense will stay the course taking care of the irrefutable with refutes.
I prefer a metaphorical reference to a hand grenade.
@Greg:
Most likely fumbled and dropped in the thrower’s lap (the Dems), only to damage their own instead of winning anything.
Nothingburger, incoming.
@Nathan Blue, #5:
John Bolton’s input could decide whether or not Trump’s congressional puppet Mitch McConnell can get away with providing his master a Senate “trial” where both eye-witnesses to the crime and all Executive Branch documents related to it have been openly suppressed.
Four critical republican senators, each vulnerable in the upcoming election, will have to decide whether to put their personal Seals of Approval on an obvious cover up, when one of the high-profile witnesses Trump is locking out is going public with what he knows in a matter of days.
It will be far easier to explain a vote to call witnesses than blind obedience to someone who is obviously concealing the truth.
@Greg: Sure hand grenade
Bolton is more credible than Trump, Trump’s congressional tools, or any of Trump’s lawyers. He’s more credible than all of them put together.
Anyone with a sense of humor has got to love the absurdity of Ken Starr arguing that impeachment has been used far too often for utterly trivial matters, and in a manner detrimental to the nation’s best interests. He should be displayed in the Capitol rotunda in a glass case next to Monica Lewinsky’s dress.
@Greg: Perhaps you missed this…https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/north-korea-kcna-john-bolton-war-monger.html
I didnt like this appointment and rejoiced it lasted only April thru Sept of last year.
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/09/dem-knifes-war-monger-john-bolton-as-he-exits-a-terrible-adviser-to-an-already-clueless-president/
Maybe you forgot, he was not onboard Trumps peace through strength, he would’nt want any expensive weaponry to get dusty.
He is now a sage to you?
@kitt:
I think if you found Comrade Greggie previously commented on Bolton, it would not have been favorable. Now Bolton is his guy.
@retire05: I dont trust any warmed over globalists from the past whom ever advised Trump to take on Bolton should be suspect in the future.
Bolton can now rejoin his herd of walrus where he was never an alpha male.
@Greg: Do you really want to call witnesses? Do you really think it worth it to hear from Bolton, who is going to provide only what we already know; that Trump wanted corruption addressed, that Ukraine didn’t know the aid was frozen (thus no quid pro quo), that the investigation had been reinstated before Trump’s call and that Ukraine got the aid without any announcement of investigation? Because, calling witnesses is going to include the Biden’s, the Vindman’s, Schiff, Atkinson and possibly Obama. This isn’t the Democrat majority House where they get to approve all the witnesses; this is real life.
Ever wonder why Pelosi dawdled with the articles which assured two of the Democrat’s top Presidential candidates might be kept from the Iowa Caucuses? First, the House Democrats claim their case is irrefutable and beyond dispute; why are more witnesses (witnesses THEY could have called had they followed the Constitution and not been in such a terrific hurry) necessary? Second, if getting rid of Trump was such an existential threat to the United States, the world, the solar system and possibly the galaxy itself, why the one month stall? Why push the Senate impeachment trial so close to the Iowa Caucuses?
Well, simple… because they don’t WANT witnesses and they never intend to HAVE witnesses. As soon as witnesses are approved (if they are) then the floodgates will open, witnesses infinitely more damaging to the Democrat’s history of corruption and their cover-up will be named as well and the Democrats will claim they aren’t going to accept witnesses with nothing to do with the articles (i.e., fact witnesses that can prove Biden WAS corrupt and Trump had every reason and obligation to have his corruption investigated) and refuse witnesses and blame the mean old Republicans for blocking witnesses.
One has only to wonder why the defense would waste time explaining the Constitution to Democrats when, obviously, they despise the Constitution and have no problem trampling it for their own political goals.
@kitt, #9:
He is a former White House insider who has direct, first-hand knowledge concerning details of Trump’s Ukraine scheme.
@Deplorable Me, #12:
Nonsense. It’s not democrats who have blocked testimony by ordering 13 witnesses with first-hand knowledge to defy subpoenas, nor is it democrats who have locked down every related document that’s under Executive Branch control.
@Greg: They never “ordered” anything. They asked witnesses with executive privilege to come play their stupid little games knowing they would contest them. If they had wanted them, they would have, A, followed the proper Constitutional procedure for an impeachment inquiry and had the proper vote BEFORE they called the witnesses and, B, pursued the subpoenas in court to compel them to testify.
Executive privilege is a real thing, upheld by the Supreme Court. Democrats KNEW they would have to compel them to testify by proving their testimony was needed… which they also knew they would never be able to do, because they had no evidence or case.
By the way, once again the defense destroyed the impeachment farce. Obama took a big hit, as well. Not looking good, Scooter.
@Greg:
Just not your opinion prior to what you think is a pinecone with a pin. Anyone including Achhmed is a saint if opposed to Trump, you and your talking head opinions cannot be taken very seriously.
HoR were given a 30 day cooling off period to contemplate, they voted strictly along party line the case was irrefutable, nothing more was needed.
As Mad Max said “Impeachment Is Whatever Congress Says It Is, No Law That Dictates Impeachment” There is much she will never comprehend, nor you.
@Greg:
Per the Constitution, the House never took a vote for assigning a committee to have that authority. All those subpoenas, and even the whole inquiry, are technically invalid.