Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Bolton’s Manuscript Lands in NYT Three Days After NSC Warns Bolton Book has ‘Significant Amount of Classified Information’

Bolton’s Manuscript Lands in NYT Three Days After NSC Warns Bolton Book has ‘Significant Amount of Classified Information’

I don’t believe in coincidences when it comes to politics.

https://twitter.com/marklevinshow/status/1222561156633632768

Questions have surfaced over who leaked the manuscript of John Bolton’s book. How did it get out? Gee, why would it come out now?

The Washington Examiner Chief Political Correspondent Byron York found something interesting in the timeline.

The manuscript did not contain a little classified information. Bolton put in “significant amounts of classified information.” Not only that, but some of that classified information has the TOP SECRET label.

So who leaked it to The New York Times? Obviously, with that many markups, it would take longer to edit, which means a pushed back publish date.

Bolton? Another member of the NSC? One of the guys who reviewed the book for classified information?

And people wonder why Trump is protective of information. I’m shocked no one has leaked to the press how many times he uses the bathroom a day. I mean, we all know the man loves two scoops of ice cream!

Bolton Letter by M Mali on Scribd

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

2smartforlibs | January 29, 2020 at 2:16 pm

Leaked classified information. I think only CLinotns can their ilk can get away with that.

So Bolton failed to protect classified info? That could be bad for him.

Maybe Bolton should run for president. Because it’s not allowed to investi- never mind. That only applies to leftists. Bolton, on the other hand, is in a lot of trouble.

is this not illegal?

WTF is AG Barr doing?

    MarkS in reply to fishstick. | January 29, 2020 at 2:34 pm

    The same thing he always does whenever a Trump critic breaks a law, NOTHING!!!!

      fishstick in reply to MarkS. | January 29, 2020 at 2:56 pm

      look…

      I was a Sessions critic from day 3 of his appointment

      I’ve already told my father this: there is little difference between Barr and Sessions

      Barr just “sounds” better but continues the inactions of the former

      a Trump second term (should he get it) has to start with another sweep of the top government agencies

      Barr can prove me wrong, but many said that of no show Sessions and look how that turned out

        MarkS in reply to fishstick. | January 29, 2020 at 5:47 pm

        “another sweep”? That’s Trump’s problem, not clearing out anyone Obama. If he had there wouldv’e been, no Mueller and no impeachment….at least yet

          healthguyfsu in reply to MarkS. | January 29, 2020 at 8:07 pm

          The modern day AG office in our current society is trench warfare with the trenches dug intentionally far apart to minimize casualties.

          Lob a couple things at each other but don’t move unless the other guy is dumb enough to do so.

          It’s destructive to our process of justice in this country, but it is the stalemate that we are sitting in right now.

    gonzotx in reply to fishstick. | January 29, 2020 at 3:50 pm

    Barr is doing nothing and I am sick to death of it

There’s no way Bolton included super-duper-top-secret information in a book manuscript meant for public release. It didn’t happen. He’s not our enemy.

The whole story is manufactured from plant-based horseflop. Every detail of it. The media is the enemy.

    fishstick in reply to Tiki. | January 29, 2020 at 2:58 pm

    I can easily see this guy doing it

    the fact he wanted to push a book out speaks volumes there (no pun intended)

      Voyager in reply to fishstick. | January 29, 2020 at 3:02 pm

      We will not know until we see the book itself, and we do know the New York Times, and security agencies have frequently been dishonest with the nation in this effort. This is fog of war until we’ve seen the actual paper, which the NSC, where Vindelman’s twin sits, has just ensured may never happen.

        fishstick in reply to Voyager. | January 29, 2020 at 3:09 pm

        you are missing a key element here:

        if the NSC has flagged Bolton’s book as containing confidential or classified material/s, then code and procedure has already been violated because the NYTimes somehow got snippets from it

        you think whose hands it passed onto there had authorized access to such material?

          Voyager in reply to fishstick. | January 29, 2020 at 3:43 pm

          I’ll need to go digging, but I recall that at least one of the people tasked with reviewing the book in question is the twin brother of one of the Democrats star impeachment witnesses.

          So yes, while Bolton has motive and opportunity, so do several of the other people at the NSC who are also known to have hands on the manuscript. And do not forget, the original whistleblower report was a fabrication. None of the people involved are trustworthy. Further, the New York Times has a history of making stories up to fit their narrative. Even without Bolton or the NSC being up to anything, it could just as easily be the newsies making up stuff to sell papers.

          That’s why I’m saying, we cannot know anything until we have seen the actual transcript.

        Tiki in reply to Voyager. | January 29, 2020 at 5:20 pm

        >>>”Voyager – We will not know until we see the book itself.”

        I simply reject the notion that Bolton would purposefully and willfully leak incredibly secret information by such obvious methods.

        I do believe that members of the intelligence community would purposefully leak damaging information and then attribute that secret information to Bolton’s manuscript.

        NYT’s writers and editors are known liars.

        The clip is from Dr. Zhivago. Is Bolton the Knife and the Manuscript and Book the spoon and fork?

        https://youtu.be/ozpct8zUA_U

    Sonnys Mom in reply to Tiki. | January 30, 2020 at 11:59 am

    I’ve been wondering if the left is picking Bolton off, just to divide Trump supporters and watch us go after the latest shiny object.

Babylon Bee: “John Bolton Says He Will Testify In Exchange For Large Bucket Of Fish.”

To answer your question: 8 leaks, 3 bm, but only 2 if he has had 2 scoops of ice cream and cheese at dinner

ScottTheEngineer | January 29, 2020 at 3:19 pm

My understanding is that the slimes printed a story about what might be in the book from someone that “saw” it. Since hes in the process of writing it I doubt the truthfulness. Bolton has always seemed pretty straightforward to me.

Also, The we’d be in ww6 by now punchline was comedy gold.

I, once upon a time, thought highly of John Bolton. No more. Tell all books by a disgruntled former employee are tacky, at least, probably illegal due to classified material. No one should expect any discretion by the dinosaur media regarding classified information protection.

This is just a part of the Democrat’s appeal to the court of public opinion. Their new evidentiary standard is preponderance of innuendo. Let’s hope it doesn’t work.

I, once upon a time, thought highly of John Bolton. No more. Tell all books by a disgruntled former employee are tacky, at least, probably illegal due to classified material. No one should expect any discretion by the dinosaur media regarding classified information protection.

This is just a part of the Democrat’s appeal to the court of public opinion. Their new evidentiary standard is preponderance of innuendo. Let’s hope it doesn’t work.

Paul In Sweden | January 29, 2020 at 3:58 pm

What did Bolton leak? I hear generalizations but no specifics.

    The New York Times has been playing the telephone game, again. Why would anybody assume they are telling the truth? We have no idea, yet, what he leaked.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Valerie. | January 29, 2020 at 5:04 pm

      You make a good point, not only do we not know what he might have leaked, we do no how sleazy the the way the left operates today. Bolton may not be the problem, he might simply be being setup, be a pawn in the latest left con job.

    fishstick in reply to Paul In Sweden. | January 29, 2020 at 5:51 pm

    apparently an unpublished manuscript got into the hands of the NYTimes

    that is like illegal on 3 different levels if the reports are true if it contains confidential and classified info

    1 – Bolton and his team putting said content into a book ready to be published

    2 – the NSC somehow not tagging said content

    3 – then that content getting into the hands if those without authorized access

I don’t trust the NSC except that just about everything they tell me is 180 degrees ass-backwards. I will never trust the New York Slimes after such a storied history of Fake News. I don’t trust Bolton as he is a publicity-seeking slime-ball. This is a perfect storm of bullshit.

Seems like a staged show. The only question is who is the puppeteer?

I’ll just remind you, nothing, not one thing, prevents Bolton from stepping up to a microphone or twitter and speaking his mind.

He could set the record straight. He could make his claims about the president.

He doesn’t. He wishes to harm the president without the appearance of doing so directly. He has no more proof of presidential wrongdoing than the man on the moon, perhaps less.

One of President trumps most useful attributes seems to be exposing anti-Americans previously considered patriotic.

What matters the very most is how Bolton’s book was reviewed and determined to have had a substantial amount of classified information present prior to the so called leak. What this means is that anyone caught leaking this material to the press (assuming the legal process works as intended without the all to common Democrat get out of jail free card that renders leakers who are Democrats immune from these laws) would be facing a great many years behind bars if caught(and you would hope efforts would be spent to find the leaker with a high likelihood of of success).
>
What we also know is that time and again we have had these claims of bombshells only to have them be duds. On top of that, it seems we are hearing rumblings of how Bolton was speaking to his impression of Trump’s motives and so forth.
>
This now brings us to the real question. How do we know that anything was really leaked? The claim was made about a leak, the claim was made of what was kinda sort of contained in the leak, but no one has seen any real evidence of a leak. All we have seen are claims of a leak.
>
Historically we have seen Democrats use this play before to gin up anger based on a lie to get political pressure to do something the administration does not want. I would submit that this is all a ploy where the Democrats know the administration will not let Bolton testify due to classification concerns so they orchestrated this talk of leaks and such in order to paint Trump into a corner. If Bolton does not testify, then the Democrats can endlessly claim cover up and use this in the election and this appears to be their final goal now that everything else has fallen apart.

Is this the Vindmans doing a CYA or did Bolton leak to the NYT?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend