Mark Levin Masterfully Breaks Down Bolton’s ‘Bombshell’ Point-by-Point
By Joe Saunders
Published January 27, 2020 at 4:40p
For Mark Levin, it’s not about bombshells. It’s about the bottom line.
That’s one truth regular listeners to the conservative radio host are well aware of, and it’s one that comes to mind immediately on reading a Twitter thread posted by Levin on Monday morning.
Liberals were still celebrating a conveniently timed story posted by The New York Times on Sunday night, just as the second day of President Donald Trump’s defense in his Senate impeachment trial was due to begin.
But in a point-blank Twitter post that sounded like a conclusion to one of his own well-reasoned radio lectures, Levin asked one bottom-line question.
“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?” Levin wrote. And he was just getting started.
“As a matter of FACT, there was no quid pro quo. And there’s still no evidence to the contrary.”Mark R. Levin✔@marklevinshow
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. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/26/trump-denies-new-york-times-report-on-john-bolton-book/ …Trump Denies New York Times Report on John Bolton BookTrump denied claims in a forthcoming book by John Bolton reportedly saying Trump wanted to make aid to Ukraine conditional on investigations.breitbart.com8,290Twitter Ads info and privacy3,929 people are talking about this
There’s no denying those points. To call The Times story a “politically timed leak” is understating the case considerably. Liberals in the media, Democrats in the Senate and Bolton’s publishers could not have asked for better timing.
(In fact, it almost seems like it all could have been planned ahead of time for the express purpose of maximizing the damage of perception to the president — and maximizing publicity for Bolton’s book.)
And as Levin noted, the Bolton story says nothing about the kind of “quid pro quo” Democrats harped on for so long.
1. 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.11.7KTwitter Ads info and privacy4,807 people are talking about this
2. 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.2,423Twitter Ads info and privacy833 people are talking about this
3.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 trial3,218Twitter Ads info and privacy1,055 people are talking about this
4. 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.3,223Twitter Ads info and privacy1,139 people are talking about this
It’s the kind of point-by-point breakdown that carries special weight coming from someone intimately involved in the writing and publishing process. But for anyone who’s followed the impeachment story closely, it’s an analysis that makes sense.
While Bolton, a former national security advisor, was often mentioned as a potential subject of a subpoena from the House, Democrats bent on railroading through an impeachment vote couldn’t be bothered to take the time to fight the court battle that would have ensued over Congress attempting to infringe on the executive branch to that extent.
So when Bolton announced through his attorney in early January that he would be willing to testify in the Senate if served a subpoena, it was like the first shoe dropping. The second one was waiting — for the appropriate time, apparently.
And on Sunday night it came, just when it was becoming clear to all just how badly the Democratic impeachment farce had gone over with the American public.
Suddenly, Bolton was back in the news. And suddenly — as in the disgraceful case of the battle over the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh — Senate Democrats were celebrating a surprise development of dubious distinction
But Levin wasn’t buying it.
In a separate thread, he got away from analyzing the aspects of political book publishing and got to the politics of the moment:
And that is the final question.
Democrats and the media spent Monday enjoying the Bolton “bombshell” so much that it was hard to find any news outlet that’s avoided the word, whether Politico, The Daily Beast, or The Washington Post.
But Levin’s analysis brought a moment of calm.
Looking at Levin’s analysis of the timing of the book’s writing, Bolton’s initial reticence about testifying then his sudden willingness to do so, and considering that the “politically timed leak” came at the moment of maximum impact, it’s hard to see this latest development as anything but a continuation of the brutal, slimy tactics Democrats used during the Kavanaugh fight.
In the final analysis, none of it has to do with “impeachable offenses,” as Levin wrote.
And bombshells or no bombshells, that’s, in fact, the bottom line.
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.