The NYT Bolton “Bombshell” that isn’t

The NYT Bolton “Bombshell” that isn’t

Last night the New York Times released a “bombshell” story claiming that in his upcoming book, John Bolton confirms that Trump talked about linking Ukraine aid to investigations.  Funny how this “bombshell” just happened to be timed on a Sunday night before the Senate trial picks up again.  Such a coincidence and totally not planned.

If this all sounds vaguely familiar, it’s because we’ve seen this strategy before.  The Democrat handmaids in the media timing “bombshell” stories to help advance the cause of the ResistanceLOL while influencing Senators.

It’s exactly what they tried during the Kavanaugh confirmation.

A leak based on hearsay and light on facts that conveniently advances a desperately-needed narrative just when Democrats think all is lost.

When Christine Blasey Ford’s vague, unsubstantiated accusation failed to take out Brett Kavanaugh, suddenly a bunch of even vaguer, less substantiated accusations just happened to make the news.

And just like that, Democrats were demanding that all these new accusers be called as “witnesses” to further delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation while throwing more mud on the man’s character and reputation.

Democrats and their media handmaids keep using the same strategy over and over expecting different results — something Mollie Hemingway saw coming over a week ago.

While it’s true that this NYT “bombshell” has the benefit of causing a hair-on-fire stink both on social media and on cable news, that isn’t the primary purpose of publishing it.

No.  The real purpose of this “bombshell” story is to reach a target audience of four – namely four Republican Senators (Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and one more squishy Republican like Cory Gardner or Ben Sasse).

That’s it.  Those are the only people the New York Times is hoping to reach.

The objective of this story isn’t “news.”  It’s to influence the impeachment jury and get four Republicans to vote in favor of calling Michael Bolton as a “witness.”

And, as if to confirm my theory, last night Chuck Schumer tweeted this:

At the end of the day, this “bombshell” will be just another dud.  You know, just like the “bombshell” BuzzFeed story last year about Trump telling Michael Cohen to lie in his testimony before the House.

For one thing, the New York Times does not appear to actually have the book manuscript.  Instead, they are reporting on what “multiple people described of Mr. Bolton’s account of the Ukraine affair.”

In other words, like with most of the shampeachment “witnesses,” the report is based what other people say someone said.

But even this report based on “multiple people” doesn’t claim that President Trump actually withheld the aid until Ukraine agreed to investigate the 2016 election interference or Hunter Biden/Burisma.

Of course it doesn’t.  Because he didn’t.

But the NYT’s objective here is the buzz, not the facts.

They are banking on most people not bothering to actually read the article.  That’s why the headline isn’t supported by the article itself.

Fortunately for the New York Times, there are enough idiots who will stupidly read the headline and rush to make pronouncements that are not supported by what the article actually says.

Idiots like Schiff super-fan, Jennifer Rubin.

“Evidence.”  Sure, Jen.

Because the hope is that the buzz alone, loudly repeated on every cable news outlet and newspaper, will be enough to sway four Republicans to do what Adam Schiff wants them to do.

The Times’ itself gives away the plan in the article:

The Senate impeachment trial could end as early as Friday without witness testimony. Democrats in both the House and Senate have pressed for weeks to include any new witnesses and documents that did not surface during the House impeachment hearings to be fair, focusing on persuading the handful of Republican senators they would need to join them to succeed.

But a week into the trial, most lawmakers say the chances of 51 senators agreeing to call witnesses are dwindling, not growing.

Oh, noes!  The chances are dwindling!  Quick, let’s publish a “bombshell” report in hopes we can turn that around!!!

As Jesse Kelly often says on Twitter, “None of what you see is real.”

And this “bombshell” isn’t what it appears to be.  It doesn’t change the facts.  But it isn’t supposed to change the facts.  It’s supposed to influence the jury.

Like every other dud of a story, this will sputter out like a wet fart.

And don’t doubt me. The New York Times knows it will sputter out.

Their hope is that the sputter doesn’t happen until after four Republicans change their minds.


I told you so…

Hit the Tip Jar!

Every dollar makes a difference!  Hit the DONATE button in the side bar.  Or, set up a recurring monthly contribution by choosing SUBSCRIBE.

Please White List Patriot Retort

Not everyone can afford to make a donation.  But you can still help keep this site solvent by white listing in your ad blocker. Ads help pay for this site and ad-blockers hurt that effort.  I made sure that the ads that appear here will not obstruct or interfere with your enjoyment of the content.  So please add to your white list.


Get Dianny’s latest ebook, RANT: Derangement & Resistance in MAGA Country. You can find it at Amazon, Apple iBooksBarnes & Noble Nook Store, and at Smashwords for only $4.99!

Share, share, share

6 thoughts on “The NYT Bolton “Bombshell” that isn’t

  • January 27, 2020 at 11:31 am

    I had to put out a couple of minor dumpster fires on social media this weekend when people I know in real life got up in arms over a news report that said (paraphrasing) “Trump is a horrible person because he is changing the laws so the children of US Service members serving overseas will no longer be considered US Citizens!!!”

    Looking at the linked article, the very first paragraph is an update with the ‘reporter’ admitting they were forced to change their headline (but conveniently not the link title) to say “…SOME US Service Members…” If you then continued to read the article, you would learn the rule change only affects the children born to non-US Citizens stationed in foreign countries.

    So, in other words – the children of foreign citizens would not be granted automatic US Citizenship if born outside the United States.

    I had to ask both friends if they bothered to read the actual article. Neither one had, of course. Which is exactly what the modern media counts on, that 90% of their readers will not read beyond the sensationalized headline written specifically to make the current President look bad and/or like a horrible person.

    NEVER trust the media!

  • January 27, 2020 at 12:10 pm

    Spot-on Dianny, Michael Bolton’s God-awful “pop-rock ballad music” is getting it’s just rewards. Now, about John Bolton…

  • January 27, 2020 at 12:21 pm

    Regardless of what John Bolton’s knowledge of events is/isn’t or what his testimony would/wouldn’t be, I think it’s extremely trashy of him to have a book in the wings at this particular time….. $$$$$$$$

  • January 27, 2020 at 12:29 pm

    Dianny, thank you for this. I hadn’t realized that the NYT had not actually received a copy of the manuscript, and like the original “whistleblower”, this report is based entirely on heresay evidence.

  • January 27, 2020 at 2:21 pm

    New York Slimes Editor-in-Chief must be Adam Sh*t.
    They write things that are not so.
    All the news that’s fit to wrap fish in.

  • January 27, 2020 at 7:18 pm

    New York Slimes! Who in their right mind believes any of their BS.

Comments are closed.