The New York Times Sets the Final, Desperate Impeachment Deep State Narrative

[Achilles]

The New York Times Sets the Final, Desperate Impeachment Deep State Narrative

January 27, 2020
by David Blackmon

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

The New York Times makes a final desperate play in its role as bullhorn for the Deep State. – Ok, so, this was inevitable: After the White House defense team devastated the Democrats’ impeachment scam with a simple recitation of the actual facts at hand on Saturday, the corrupt hacks at the New York Times publish yet another narrative-setter on behalf of their political party of choice.

The writers of the piece are Hillary Clinton tool Maggie Haberman and Obama hack Michael Schmidt, which is really pretty much all you need to know as far as the slant the piece takes, and the utter lack of any shred of journalistic integrity it involves. As is typical of this kind Deep State support news-fakery, the piece names not a single source, relying instead only on “multiple people,” a fact that is not revealed until the fourth paragraph.

Oh, yeah, and the fact that no one – not one single person – at the New York Times has actually seen the manuscript, written by former national security advisor John Bolton, is not revealed until … well, it’s not revealed anywhere in the piece at all. The piece contains no quotes from the alleged Bolton manuscript, because the Times has not seen the book.

The Times does reveal that the manuscript was submitted to the White House for pre-clearance by the National Security Council, which we know is filled with Deep State Obama plants, and which has been a leak factory since Day One of this administration. The NSC also provided both the fake “whistleblower” – Eric Ciaramella – and his buddy Alexander Vindman to serve as the catalysts for the impeachment scam.
Bolton’s spokeswoman claims that single copy submitted to the White House is the one and only copy the publisher has distributed to anyone:



Hey, let’s all guess where these leaks originate from. It isn’t that hard, is it?

So, what does the Bolton book claim? From the Times’ piece:

President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.

The president’s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office.

Take away the inflammatory rhetoric and Democrat-narrative framing predictably added in by Haberman and Schmidt, and you have the President telling Bolton exactly what his legal team told the Senate: That the President was doing his job, waiting on releasing the aid to Ukraine – perfectly legal under his constitutional authority and the law – until he was sure that the new Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky was a good actor who was going to work to investigate and punish corruption by American actors in his country.

Remember that we have Joe Biden on video, admitting to literally bribing the previous Ukrainian government in 2016 to fire the prosecutor who was investigating his son’s company. The Democrats’ entire impeachment scam hinges on the argument that Biden is somehow exempt from any investigation into his outright thuggery while serving as Vice President simply because he now happens to be a candidate for the party’s presidential nomination. Sorry, but that cat don’t flush.

Back to the NSC: It is very likely that the Times’ corrupt reporters have been in possession of their information for several weeks, and waited until this moment to release this report, right before the Trump team is about to resume its defense arguments in the Senate trial. How can we be fairly sure of this? Because of this little-noticed Daily Mail story from January 17, title ” Donald Trump’s top Russia expert on National Security Council is ‘escorted off the White House grounds amid a security investigation’:

President Donald Trump’s top Russia expert on the National Security Counsel is reportedly on leave pending a security investigation.
Andrew Peek, the NSC’s senior director for European and Russian affairs, was escorted from the White House grounds on Friday, two people familiar with the matter told Bloomberg.

Peek had been in the NSC role for just two months, after most recently working as a deputy assistant secretary of state with responsibility for Iran and Iraq.

He replaced Tim Morrison, who left the position after testifying in the House impeachment inquiry.

What do you suppose that “security investigation” involved? If you answered “probably leaks to Haberman and Schmidt,” you win the gold medal.

Naturally, both House and Senate Democrats immediately – within bare moments – responded to the Times report on their Twitter accounts with strikingly similar talking points. Why, it’s almost as if they were working in coordination with Haberman and Schmidt. Because they were.

The President responded a few hours later with tweets of his own:

I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens. In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book. With that being said, the…
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 27, 2020

and

…(Democrats said I never met) and released the military aid to Ukraine without any conditions or investigations – and far ahead of schedule. I also allowed Ukraine to purchase Javelin anti-tank missiles. My Administration has done far more than the previous Administration.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 27, 2020

This narrative-setting “report” from the Times creates the echo chamber the rest of the media will use throughout the next two days. Every on-air “analysis” from Democrat media toadies on CNN, MSNBC and the broadcast networks will be viewed through the prism of this story. This story provides all of the corrupt reporters the pretext for ignoring the arguments presented by the President’s defense team, and now will be used to hammer the RINO Usual Suspects – Murkowski, Collins, Romney, etc. – into voting with the senate Democrats to prolong the trial.

And it’s not just the RINOs: The Times also has an op/ed piece this morning advocating that Chief Justice John Roberts issue subpoenas for witnesses under his own authority. The piece is written by two leftist Georgetown professors and 83 year-old former Oklahoma congressman Mickey Edwards, another RINO who presumably needed a pay day.

These pressure points are the intention, of course, the result of the carefully-coordinated plan between the Democrats and their activists in our fake news media.

It’s all very transparent to anyone paying close attention. Unfortunately, very few Americans have really been paying close attention.

That is all.

https://dbdailyupdate.com/index.php/...ate-narrative/

[moestooge]

How do the NYT and other lamestream media puppets survive in a non-stop trend of falling circulation and revenues?

[Green Man]

How do the NYT and other lamestream media puppets survive in a non-stop trend of falling circulation and revenues?

The NYT does it by growing their circulation and revenues.