{"id":334451,"date":"2020-01-27T16:16:00","date_gmt":"2020-01-27T21:16:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?p=334451"},"modified":"2021-05-03T08:16:27","modified_gmt":"2021-05-03T12:16:27","slug":"perfectly-timed-bolton-leak-follows-old-playbook","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2020\/01\/27\/perfectly-timed-bolton-leak-follows-old-playbook\/","title":{"rendered":"Perfectly Timed Bolton Leak Follows Old Playbook"},"content":{"rendered":"

RUSH: Right on schedule, Mitt Romney goes to the microphone. “Hey, you know what? I saw this Bolton business, and I just want everybody to know that I am ready today to step in and be president.” Well, that\u2019s what Romney\u2019s doing. “I\u2019ll be able to do it. I\u2019ll step in. If anybody wants me to be president, I\u2019ll go there today. Whatever it takes for me to get there, if that\u2019s what you want me to do, I\u2019ll do it.” That\u2019s how you translate what Romney is saying about witnesses.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: Notice the timing of this leak. This book has been in the vetting process for two to three weeks now — and, by the way, do you know whose vetting it at the National Security Council?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

If you write a book like this and you\u2019re part of the Security Council, National Security Council apparatus, you have to submit this to the National Security Council for vetting before it can be send to the publisher. They have to clear it to make sure no national security secrets or violations are being written about and published. Alexander Vindman\u2019s brother, Yevgeny Vindman, is the guy vetting Bolton\u2019s book!<\/p>\n

Isn\u2019t it just magical that on the very day after the Trump defense team decimates the House managers\u2019 case, the very next day here comes this leak from the New York Times about what Trump told Bolton supposedly that he didn\u2019t want to do? What remains amazing is the leak supposedly is that Trump told Bolton that he didn\u2019t want to release any aid to Ukraine until Ukraine turned over him material related to investigations. That\u2019s from the Maggie Haberman tweet:<\/p>\n

“New York Times scoop: Bolton book draft circulated to associates and sent to White House for review process describes a conversation with the president where he says he doesn\u2019t want to release withheld aid \u2019til Ukraine…” Doesn\u2019t want to? Well, you know, I don\u2019t want to go the dentist, but I do it, and I\u2019ll tell everybody the day I have to go, “Damn, I don\u2019t want to go!” If I\u2019ve got a meeting after the program that I don\u2019t want to take — ask the people here — I\u2019ll whine and moan and say, “God, I really don\u2019t want to do this. Oh, I wish I had not scheduled it.”<\/p>\n

But I take the meeting and I go to the dentist. So Trump supposedly tells Bolton that he doesn\u2019t want to release aid. But he did. The aid got released. It was more than Ukraine thought they were gonna get, and it included Javelin missiles, and Trump got nothing for it. (laughs) There was no investigation! So we\u2019ve got Bolton here saying that Trump supposedly… The leak is Bolton book says Trump told him that he didn\u2019t want to release aid. The leak cannot be that Trump didn\u2019t release aid because the aid was released!<\/p>\n

Ukraine got it, and the Democrats making this case have always tried to make criminal what they claim were Trump\u2019s desires or Trump\u2019s thoughts or what he really intended or hoped to do. And they have ignored the fact that all of these supposed criminal thoughts that Trump had never prevailed. Ukraine got their aid. It\u2019s also understandable that Trump… You know, Ted Cruz has got a podcast. Everybody\u2019s got a podcast. If you can\u2019t get a radio show, you get a podcast, and Ted Cruz has got a podcast out there.<\/p>\n

He said (summarized), “You know, I think these House managers ought to stop focusing on a simple acquittal and they need to make tracks and they need to go at this on the offense, and thing that the Trump defense team needs to do is make it plain. Establish that it is perfectly legal for a president of the United States to investigate corruption in a foreign country that involves American citizens,” and I agree with Cruz. I think this is one of the things…<\/p>\n

I hope the Trump legal team makes this point. There\u2019s nothing criminal about wanting a corruption-free government with whom we\u2019re doing business in an ally, and there\u2019s nothing criminal about wanting to find out if American government officials have been engaging in corruption in a particular foreign government that is an ally. So I think what we have here… I know a lot of people say, “But, Rush, Romney hasn\u2019t spoken up and denied this yet.” No. Not Romney, but Bolton. “Bolton hasn\u2019t spoken up and denied this yet.”<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

No, he hasn\u2019t. Bolton is an interesting figure. It remains to be seen if all this is true. But again, the point is that even this scoop, this gigantic leak talks about what Trump said he wanted to do, and it\u2019s overridden by the fact that he didn\u2019t do it. He didn\u2019t withhold the aid. He didn\u2019t get the investigation. So how in the world can there be anything criminal in what somebody wants to do versus what they end up doing? Particularly if there\u2019s no illegality involved, if there\u2019s no criminality, and if there isn\u2019t an impeachable offense.<\/p>\n

So let\u2019s go through some of the timeline here. We have the very sad and unfortunate Kobe Bryant death and crash, and the Drive-By Media is distraught for a number of reasons, among them that the news coverage of that crash totally overwhelms what they thought would be a 24\/7, laser-like focus on the Bolton leak. What they\u2019re missing is the American people don\u2019t care about this. Did you see David Axelrod? He\u2019s one of the guys that got Obama elected. He\u2019s gotta PAC. He\u2019s got a political action committee, some sort of organization in Chicago.<\/p>\n

They had a focus group over the weekend. They got some Democrats from Cook County in there, started doing a focus group, and they purposeful didn\u2019t bring up impeachment. They waited to see how long Democrats in an Axelrod focus group would bring it up. Eighty minutes! It was an hour and 20 minutes before Cook County Democrats even bothered to bring up impeachment. It\u2019s not on anybody\u2019s mind — ad I\u2019ll tell you something else that\u2019s not on anybody\u2019s mind is John Bolton. Most people don\u2019t know who he is, especially with all the coverage of the Kobe Bryant helicopter crash.<\/p>\n

But even before that, when Bolton\u2019s name was in the media, they hated him! They despised Bolton. I\u2019m gonna be reminding you with exact details as the program unfolds. We made this point last September on this program, and of course it ended up being highlighted at RushLimbaugh.com. They hated Bolton\u2019s mustache, folks! They hated Bolton because they thought he mistreated women. He was a bully in the workplace.<\/p>\n

Whenever any Republican wanted John Bolton in the ambassadorial service or anywhere in the national security apparatus, the Democrat Party went literally bat crazy because they hated the guy, and they hated the guy because he was a hawk. They hated the guy because he was aligned with the neocons. The neocons are always wanted the U.S. extended militarily in outposts all over the world, predominantly in the Middle East, and Bolton was one of these guys that was in favor of it — and of course, he didn\u2019t get that accuse foreign policy with Trump.<\/p>\n

Trump is trying to extricate the United States from affairs and military entanglements like this, and Bolton left in a huff. He was ticked off about things. I have to also say this. I\u2019ve had dinner with John Bolton a couple times. I\u2019ve met him two or three times, and if this passage in the book is true, and this is actually what he\u2019s intending, it\u2019s not the John Bolton I thought I knew, this kind of disloyalty. You may say, “Well, Rush, it\u2019s not disloyal. He\u2019s simply telling the truth. The president didn\u2019t want to…”<\/p>\n

Yeah, but it is disloyal. But again, folks, I have to backtrack here. Doesn\u2019t this seem strangely like the Kavanaugh hearings? We\u2019re on the verge of Kavanaugh getting confirmed, and, all of a sudden, here comes Christine Blasey Ford and her story, and that begets Michael Avenatti and his story and then a whole bunch of stuff that delays the confirmation, prolongs the hearings, a demand for FBI investigations. Lo and behold, here we are.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The House managers have blown it. Nobody\u2019s watching. Not a single Republican\u2019s on the verge of voting for witnesses. And bammo! We get a leak to the New York Times from the manuscript of Bolton\u2019s book, and it looks like Vindman\u2019s — O say can you see — brother Yevgeny is in the vetting apparatus, the vetting procedure<\/a>, and all of a sudden now (sputtering), “Oh, my God! Oh, my God! We need to call Bolton! We gotta call Bolton! Look — look — look what — what this Times story says!” Bolton hasn\u2019t said it. It\u2019s supposedly in the book.<\/p>\n

We\u2019re relying on the New York Times for accuracy when they have no claim to that anymore. Two years minimum, lying day after day after day about Trump-Russia collusion — and, by the way, those lies have continued on every other adjunct. We\u2019ve had the New York Times going all-in on every Democrat allegation. If Bolton was such gold, why didn\u2019t Schiff call him? Why didn\u2019t they do their due diligence? Why didn\u2019t they take their time and call Bolton? Well, we know why. Because there would be an executive privilege fight, and it would delay it in the courts, and they had to get this done for the purposes of the 2020 campaign.<\/p>\n

It looks to me like we almost have a replay, an exact rehash of the Kavanaugh situation when he was on the verge of being confirmed. Here we are at this trial, after the first day of the president\u2019s team just destroying the Democrat House managers\u2019 whole case — they did it in two hours on Saturday — and then the next day we\u2019ve got this, when all the Democrats have been caterwauling about is, “We need witnesses! The Senate needs to open it up to witnesses,” and so forth. Now all of a sudden, at the very last moment, we\u2019re getting a recycling of a previous Democrat quasi October Surprise-type operation.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: On the cutting edge of societal evolution. What that means is if you\u2019re here every day, you\u2019ll be way ahead of the game. You\u2019ll know what\u2019s important before it becomes important, and you\u2019ll know what to think about it when it becomes important.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Now, Sean Davis — and there\u2019s a bunch of these guys I follow, and I sometimes get confused where they work. I think Sean Davis<\/a> works at The Federalist, but it might be American Greatness or it might be Breitbart or it might be the Daily Caller. I don\u2019t know where. I think it\u2019s the Federalist. His tweet is this: “John Bolton is running the exact same revenge playbook against Trump that James Comey used.<\/p>\n

“He\u2019s even using the same agent and leaking to the same reporters,” Maggie Haberman at the New York Times. “All because he\u2019s mad Trump fired him for leaking and trying to start new wars,” and, as Sean Davis says here, “It\u2019s so boring and predictable.” Bolton\u2019s attorney, Charles Cooper, said, “It is clear, regrettably, from the New York Times article published [on Sunday] that the prepublication review process has been corrupted and that information has been disclosed by persons other than those properly involved …”<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Pfft! (chuckles) Big reveal there, buddy! The process? You mean journalism has been corrupted? Really? Who knew! When did this happen, Mr. Cooper? But it is. It\u2019s the same revenge playbook, the same thing Comey did. It\u2019s the same thing they tried to do to Clarence Thomas. It\u2019s the same thing they did with Kavanaugh — and remember, it\u2019s all about what Trump said he wanted to do (chuckling), because they can\u2019t say that Trump withheld the aid. They can\u2019t say that Ukraine didn\u2019t get what they wanted. It\u2019s absurd, all of it is.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: By the way, I want to make one point here. The New York Times is admitting… It says here they\u2019re “saying,” but they\u2019re not saying. They\u2019re admitting. The New York Times is admitting they have not seen the Bolton transcript, and yet they run a story based on what it says. They\u2019ve not seen the Bolton book!<\/p>\n

They\u2019ve just been told about it by anonymous sources. What if it\u2019s an abject lie? What if whoever is doing this is knowingly lying, knowing they\u2019re gonna get two or three days out of it — and maybe even a vote on witnesses — and then at some point when the book comes out in March, it\u2019s gonna be learned or discover that it\u2019s not true? Big deal! That\u2019s also the history. “Trump colluded with Russia. He\u2019s a traitor. He stole the election.” Two years later. “Eh! No evidence. Can\u2019t find it.”<\/p>\n

Now we move on to something else that Trump supposedly did: The phone call with the Ukraine president. It\u2019s the same pattern! It\u2019s like every leak for two years on Trump-Russia collusion — and every story had a line buried in the story, “As of now, there is no evidence substantiating this claim, but, but, but,” blah, blah, blah. So the New York Times admits they have not seen the actual Bolton manuscript.<\/p>\n

They\u2019ve just been told about it by anonymous sources. We know that Vindman\u2019s brother is in the vetting process. He\u2019s on the staff of the NSC that vets books like this. See, this way if their story turns out to be completely false — if it\u2019s a total lie — they can say, “It wasn\u2019t us! It wasn\u2019t us! That\u2019s what we were told,” and that\u2019s how they\u2019ve been getting out of every lie for the past three years. “Well, our sources told us…” Let me go to the phones. This is Wantagh, Long Island. Ileana, great to have you on the program. Hello.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Hello, Rush. Everything that you just said while I was waiting to speak to you and I was listening to you, what you were saying, was 100% correct. I called because I\u2019m just so frustrated and so fed up. This is so predictable. Every time the Democrats realize that they\u2019re losing, we get these bombshells, you know? It happens to be the New York Times this time. But what I don\u2019t understand is why there is an assumption that because John Bolton writes a book or testifies at the hearing, that there is any truth or substance to his words. It is his word against the president\u2019s, and I believe President Trump.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Well —<\/p>\n

CALLER: And I believe the only witness, which is the transcript!<\/p>\n

\"\"RUSH: It doesn\u2019t matter. They hate Bolton. They\u2019ve despised Bolton. But Trump is a bigger enemy. So here it\u2019s not about who believes who. It\u2019s that they hate Trump, and somebody\u2019s come along and… We don\u2019t even know how this all happened. It\u2019s… Look, this isn\u2019t journalism. This is Democrat Party activism — and you\u2019re right. I even told you. If you go back, you\u2019ll find the transcript of this program on Friday.<\/a> I told you, “Folks, this is gonna end someday.<\/p>\n

“What\u2019s next? Because we got 10 months between now and the election. This isn\u2019t the end of Democrat tricks, surprises, what have you. So what\u2019s gonna be next?” Well, lo and behold (chuckles), here we are. After Trump\u2019s lawyers make their case on Saturday and destroy Schiff and his managers, guess what we have here? We\u2019ll take a break. Thank you for the call, Ileana.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: By the way, President Trump has tweeted (he\u2019s also said verbally) that he never told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations in the Democrats. He never told Bolton this. The New York Times story is that Trump told Bolton he wanted to.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: All right. So now the second day of the Trump legal team presenting their case, which will probably be a combination of refuting Schiff and the Democrat House managers and Trump\u2019s asserting his case. They really… I don\u2019t want to characterize it beforehand. I hope that it\u2019s… I don\u2019t mind going down the list and refuting the baseless, just crock-filled allegations the Democrats have made, but there does need to be some offense asserted here.<\/p>\n

They did a great job on Saturday of just conveying to anybody paying any attention that Adam Schiff is a serial, serious, pathologically, really messed-up guy and liar. So just to review before moving on to some other things here, the bottom line is this leak — which the New York Times admits they have not seen. They\u2019ve not seen the manuscript. They\u2019ve not seen the book. They\u2019ve just been told about it by anonymous sources — the same anonymous sources who assured the New York Times that Trump had colluded with Russia, that Trump was a Russian agent.<\/p>\n

Same type of sources. The sources are CIA and other Obama holdovers still in the Trump administration. But they\u2019ve made it plain they have not seen the manuscript. Now, some people have said, “Why doesn\u2019t Bolton just come out and say, yeah or no?” He can\u2019t yet. The vetting process is not over. He would be in violation of all kinds of security regulations. He can\u2019t comment until they have vetted the book and okayed it for publication, at least as I understand it — and that makes some sense to me.<\/p>\n

But if New York Times hasn\u2019t seen it, they\u2019re just reporting what anonymous sources are telling \u2019em, that way when the truth comes out, they say, “Hey, it wasn\u2019t us! Our sources misled us.” The Washington Post and New York Times do this all the time. The Washington Post did it with the whistleblower complaint! They said they never saw the complaint by the whistleblower. Where is the whistleblower, by the way? The whistleblower, the guy who got all this started. Schiff said, “He\u2019s gotta testify! He\u2019s gotta testify!”<\/p>\n

Then Schiff said, “No, it doesn\u2019t require his testimony now. This hearing doesn\u2019t require his testimony,” and that\u2019s because the whistleblower implicates Schiff, because Schiff was instrumental in orchestrating the whistleblower and the actions that he took. I could spend the rest of the program probably giving you examples of how the Washington Post and New York Times do this all the time. And, by the way, Alexander Vindman — O say can you see — was behind the whistleblower story, which the whistleblower leaked to the Washington Post.<\/p>\n

It was Vindman who was on the phone call that then reported to the whistleblower who then — secondhand — went to Schiff. Illegally. He should have gone to the inspector general, but he didn\u2019t. The inspector general then changed the regulations to allow secondhand whistleblower testimony, or secondhand knowledge to be qualified. (sigh) So all of these players… Vindman\u2019s twin brother, Yevgeny, is in the vetting process for Bolton\u2019s book.<\/p>\n

The original Washington Post leak on the whistleblower\u2019s complaint turned out to be a pack of lies, and among those pack of lies was that the transcript of the phone call was shocking. “It was frightening! It was scary,” the whistleblower said. “It was unreal! Oh, my God, we had to do something, it was so bad,” and then there\u2019s nothing in it. Trump releases the transcript. None of that was the case, and the Washington said, “Don\u2019t blame us. That\u2019s what we were told.” Their lies got enough attention to kick off this entire impeachment process.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>The whistleblower\u2019s lies are why we are here, and the Washington Post published this pack of lies and then got out of it by saying, “Well, it\u2019s what we were told. We didn\u2019t actually see it.” I hope the Trump defense plays all the clips of the Democrats saying that we don\u2019t need witnesses, that the impeachment is a coup from the Clinton days, as well as the Drive-Bys saying it. Play it several times over the next two days. Even though we say hypocrisy doesn\u2019t stick to Democrats, it still would be good to get it out there.<\/p>\n

Anyway, I think the Bolton leak — that, again, the New York Times has not seen — was orchestrated to do two things: To distract from the Republicans just creaming the Democrats\u2019 case on Saturday, and it was a Hail Mary pass to try to get the Senate to vote to call witnesses. And it was not the first. You know what the first effort they made to get the Senate to call witnesses was? The Lev Parnas video! Lev Parnas. They had Lev Parnas video of Trump saying he wanted to fire Yovanovitch.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s what Schumer was saying. They uncovered “a plot,” uncovered a plot to fire the ambassador, the Lev Parnas video. That was supposed to be so heinous that it was gonna make the Republicans immediately vote to call witnesses. But it flopped. It went nowhere because, guess what? You don\u2019t need to “plot” to fire the ambassador. You just call her up and say, “You\u2019re out!” Trump doesn\u2019t need to orchestrate a “plot.” He appoints ambassadors. He fires ambassadors. Any president does!<\/p>\n

But somehow… Somehow Lev Parnas on video, Trump on video saying that they wanted to get rid of the ambassador. Sack her. Get rid of her. Somehow this is impeachable? Somehow this is sinister? Somehow this is a crime? It flopped; so here we are. Now, it\u2019s fascinating to read news media accounts before the Bolton leak — and as your host, that\u2019s exactly what I did over the weekend. I\u2019m here to tell you, the Senate — and it was widely known, conventional wisdom.<\/p>\n

The Senate was on the brink of voting not to call any witnesses. In fact, Mike Allen of Axios — formerly of Politico, formerly of the Washington Post, formally of the Drive-By Media. Mike Allen reported yesterday that Trump is on, quote, “a glide path to swift acquittal at his Senate impeachment trial despite a blizzard of evidence bolstering Democrats\u2019 accusations.” There isn\u2019t a shred of evidence that bolsters any accusation! That\u2019s the rub! That\u2019s the thing.<\/p>\n

Anyway, before the Bolton leak, the Drive-Bys were wringing their hands (sniveling), “Oh, my God, the Senate is gonna vote no witnesses! Oh, my God. (mewling) Horrible,” and F. Chuck Todd all over Meet the Press and had his guests on and they were all concerned that “nobody cares (sniffles) and nobody…” In fact, I\u2019ve got the audio sound bite of this. Let me see I can find it real quick. I think I\u2019ve got this. Yeah. Grab sound bite number 14. Chuck Todd, Meet the Depressed, and he\u2019s got Cook Political Report national editor Amy Walter on, and they\u2019re talking about voter reaction to all of this.<\/p>\n