In an op-ed for Fox News, Fred Fleitz — the former Chief of Staff and Executive Secretary of the National Security Council — called for John Bolton to withdraw his book. He has admired John Bolton for decades and served as his chief of staff twice. In the piece, he praises him and enumerates some of his major successes.
PRESIDENTIAL CONVERSATIONS
However, he strongly disagrees with Bolton violating the sanctity of a president’s confidential discussions.
“Given the importance of protecting a president’s confidential discussions with his senior advisers,” he writes, “I strongly disagree with Bolton’s decision to release the book before the November presidential election and call on him to withdraw it from the publisher immediately.”
Fleitz doesn’t understand — if he had to write this book at all — why he’s publishing it immediately before the election.
“I haven’t seen Bolton’s book manuscript and I don’t know what’s in it. I take Bolton and his staff at their word that they did not leak the manuscript to the New York Times. But I believe they are still responsible for this leak since Bolton’s explosive book was sent to the leak-prone National Security Council for a security review in December 2019 so the book could be published in the spring of 2020. [Trump-hating witness Lt. Col. Vindman has a twin brother whose job it is to review the manuscripts.]
HE KNEW IT WOULD BE LEAKED
He continued, stressing the fact that Bolton had to know it would be leaked.
“It also is inexplicable how such a sensitive manuscript could be sent to the NSC in the middle of the impeachment process. Under such circumstances, a leak of the manuscript was all but certain.”
Why now, Fleitz wants to know. We would like to know too. Bolton claims to be a conservative, yet he is assisting in the destruction of the President. That leaves the office open to communist/socialist candidates in the Democrat Party.
-
The Importance of Prayer: How a Christian Gold Company Stands Out by Defending Americans’ Retirement
“If a manuscript of this sensitivity was to be published at all, this should happen after the election, not in the spring of 2020. I don’t understand the need for a former National Security Adviser to publish a tell-all book critical of a president he served, especially during a presidential reelection campaign that will determine the fate of the country. There will be a time for Bolton to speak out without appearing to try to tip a presidential election.”
Fleitz is a decades-long ally of Bolton’s.
For years, the Democrats trashed Bolton. Now, they love him, but they will drop him in a flash when he is no longer useful.
MARK LEVIN RESPONDS TO THE TIMES PIECE
Mark Levin also responded in a series of tweets to the NY Times hit piece summarizing — allegedly — John Bolton’s comments about the quid pro quo. The Times piece is obviously aimed at the small group of ‘weak links’ as Donald Trump Jr. and others refer to the RINO Republicans.
1. Well, of course, Romney and Collins want Bolton to testify. They always have.
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) January 27, 2020
The NY Times piece is aimed at the usual 4-6 Republicans who are constantly trying to make nice with the media & some of whom face tough re-election races. But none of it had anything to do with impeachable offenses.
And if they’re defeated in November, it’ll be due, in significant part, to their own political miscalculations today. I would ask them, however, to list the other witnesses they wish to hear. So far, they’ve not. We’d like to know.
Furthermore, the Democrats don’t want to hear from all witnesses. They want to pick the witnesses and none others. This is exactly what they did in the House. Is that how a “trial” works? Prosecutors get to determine all trial witnesses?
Plus, they get witnesses they passed over in the House? The Democrats continue pushing the Stalinist system, and Romney, Collins, et al, are apparently all for it. They’re being played for fools.
This is all idiotic. For those former federal prosecutors who keep saying you can’t have a trial without witnesses, this isn’t a courtroom. The rules of evidence don’t apply. The jury is not selected through some objective process.
There’s no preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt standard. And THIS trial is to be based on the information gathered by the House Democrats and used to cast votes in the House.This isn’t a prospective process. We all know what’s happening here. It’s a sham.
