Mark Levin has weighed in this morning on Bolton’s book leak that was in the NY Times yesterday, saying even if the leak were true, it changes nothing:
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://t.co/ivpSXilnIM
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) January 27, 2020
Levin also suggested he’s not buying the “surprised” response by Bolton’s lawyers the the book leaked:
Let me get this straight. John Bolton and his lawyer Chuck Cooper submitted the book manuscript to the NSC for review, which is notoriously known for leaking, on the eve of the impeachment trial, and they’re now surprised about a cherry-picked leak?
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) January 27, 2020
He went on to point out that if the GOP falls for this leak and allows witnesses to be called, they will lose the Senate:
1. We are left with a politically-motivated, last-minute, cherry-picked leak from anonymous sources to the Trump-hating New York Times. And now the media attention is focused on the Democrat demands,
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) January 27, 2020
2. in hopes of turning a handful of Republicans susceptible to these tactics to join the Democrats in a call for witnesses — which, of course, the House Democrats opposed during their impeachment inquiry. If the GOP falls for this they’ll lose the Senate.
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) January 27, 2020
3. Focus on the case the president’s lawyers are finally able to make. This leak to the New York Times is intended to change the narrative. The Democrats still have no case. FACT: there was no quid pro quo.
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) January 27, 2020
Here are a few more tweets from Levin on this…
1. I notice the NY Times article, despite its length, cleverly omits any direct quotes from the Bolton manuscript. Instead, it appears to rely on cherry-picked descriptions. Is the newspaper relying solely on sources or has it received a copy of the manuscript in whole or part?
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) January 27, 2020
2. And as for the sources, who benefits from this? The public needs to know who’s leaking so we can make a judgment about their credibility. Who benefits? The publisher, Bolton, the Democrats, and the Trump-haters burrowed in at the White House.
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) January 27, 2020
And…
1. What strikes me is that not a single person has alleged what Bolton has said to allege or corroborated it. And the New York Times doesn’t site any. The Times dismisses top officials, like Pompeo, Mulvaney, and Barr, who contradict what the article alleges.
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) January 27, 2020
2. The article is a hodgepodge of cherry-picked leaks from anonymous sources, inferences, etc. intended to drive the Democrat narrative during the impeachment trial.
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) January 27, 2020