Tags

, , , , ,

Regular readers know I have changed my once-relatively high opinion of Chris Wallace of Fox News.  Over the last several years, I’ve seen him transmogrify from a mostly non-biased reporter to a mostly D/S/C partisan.  This story from Fox News tends to suggest I’m on the right track:

 

The reported bombshell claim by former National Security Adviser John Bolton has left President Trump’s defenders ‘spinning like crazy’ and likely triggered a “furious” response by Senate Republicans toward the White House, “Fox News Sunday” anchor Chris Wallace said Monday.

Appearing on Fox News’ live coverage of the Senate impeachment trial, Wallace told anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum that he does not agree with the Trump team’s attempts to downplay the New York Times report. In his forthcoming book, Bolton reportedly claims that Trump explicitly linked a hold on Ukraine aid to an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden.

Notice that every unsubstantiated claim against Mr. Trump, even on Fox, is a “bombshell,” that is going to finally, once and for, get the evil Trump.  As the recipient of countless prior “bombshells,” Mr. Trump should, by this point, have been reduced to atoms.  Notice too that Wallace takes this accusation as gospel truth, without actually speaking with Bolton, or apparently, seeing the actual bookGo here for the likely source of the leak.

Appearing on Fox News’ live coverage of the Senate impeachment trial, Wallace told anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum that he does not agree with the Trump team’s attempts to downplay the New York Times report. In his forthcoming book, Bolton reportedly claims that Trump explicitly linked a hold on Ukraine aid to an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden.

‘If you want a sense of how big the news is that we’ve heard in the last 12 or 14 hours, just listen to the Trump supporters, like Congressman Lee Zeldin and others, spinning like crazy. You get a sense that this is really an important development in this case,’ said Wallace.

Or this could be just another cynical, pre-planned dirty trick by the D/S/Cs, another “bombshell” witness who will blow the case wide open, or in this situation, give the D/S/Cs additional ammunition to demand the Senate do the investigative work they refused to do.  One wonders why Wallace didn’t mention that?  One also wonders why he didn’t mention that coming up with a “bombshell” witness just when it looks like their case is circling the toilet bowl is out of the D/S/C Kavanaugh playbook.

The Times exclusively reported Sunday that Bolton’s book manuscript included a claim that Trump explicitly linked a hold on Ukraine aid to an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden. Trump told Bolton in August, according to a transcript of Bolton’s forthcoming book reviewed by the Times, ‘that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens.’

Wallace is reporting a claim by another news organization–and the NYT is an extremely credible and unbiased where Trump is concerned–from an apparently unnamed source who claims to have seen Bolton’s claim in an as yet unpublished book—triple hearsay.  Notice too how he characterizes opposing viewpoints as “spin.”  Fox was sufficiently professional to add this:

Trump fired back on Twitter on Sunday to refute Bolton’s claims, saying he ‘NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens.’

Trump went on to accuse Bolton of trying to ‘sell a book,’ noting that Bolton did not complain publicly or privately about the aid holdup ‘at the time of his very public termination.

Let us, gentle readers, assume for the sake of argument, that there was some conversation between Bolton and Trump, or a conversation that Bolton overheard wherein Mr. Trump said what Wallace is claiming.  Or perhaps Mr. Trump was merely throwing out options.  So what?  What matters is not what anyone thought aloud, or an action they once brainstormed/proposed but later abandoned.  What matters are the objective facts, which are that Mr. Trump had a legitimate concern about Ukrainian corruption, and burden sharing, he held up aid for other nations prior to Ukraine for the same reason.  Ukraine’s aid was delivered prior to the scheduled date, there was no quid pro quo and there was no investigation of any kind.

Are we to impeach presidents for their mere, and later abandoned, consideration of various foreign policy tactics?  Must they, henceforth, avoid discussing anything of consequence with their advisors?  D/S/Cs, and apparently Chris Wallace, think so.

The other possibility is Mr. Trump is telling the truth.  Comparing Mr. Trump’s reputation in that regard with that of his tormentors, by any objective standard, he is a paragon of virtue.

If Bolton is actually making this claim in his book—unlike Wallace, I require proof—I’ll have to alter my opinion of him as well, and not favorably.  Spilling this kind of information is inexcusable, and damaging to the nation as well as to his reputation for integrity.  In any case, Bolton would be wise to take this advice.

Need I say the timing is suspicious and suspect?

And the media wonders why people don’t trust them, and why Donald Trump is president.