The Media Attacks
 
Like clockwork, just after the president's defense team decimated Adam Schiff's entire impeachment case (more on that below), the two main media organs of the left, the New York Times and CNN, came rushing to the rescue. 
 
Both outlets dropped a report that many commentators called a "bombshell."  Here are my thoughts on the latest "revelations" allegedly from John Bolton's upcoming book. 

• There are no direct quotes from the Bolton manuscript in either the CNN or New York Times story because neither outlet has actually seen the book manuscript.  It was simply "described" to them by "multiple people."  This is yet another attack piece by the liberal media using anonymous sources.

• The reporters for the Times story, Maggie Haberman and Michael Schmidt, are well-known hacks with histories of running reports later debunked as false.  (Here and here.)  And the bias at the New York Times goes well beyond these two reporters.

• Whatever is in Bolton's book, how would someone have leaked what is or is not in it?  The leak could have come from the publisher.  The book is currently at the White House, undergoing a review process to ensure it does not violate national security agreements that people like Bolton have to sign when they work in the administration. 

• That review is taking place at the National Security Council (NSC), which was expanded during the Obama years and is still filled with Obama loyalists.  The so-called "whistleblower" was at the NSC.  Alexander Vindman and his twin brother, Yevgeny, are at the NSC.  By the way, one of Yevgeny Vindman's jobs is to review book manuscripts. 

• A senior NSC employee, responsible for Russia and Ukraine policy, was recently escorted from the White House and placed on leave pending a security investigation.  The official had only been there for a few months, after transferring from the State Department.  I have no idea what that is all about, but it does seem like a big coincidence.  One reason officials are abruptly removed from the White House is that they were caught leaking.

Even if Bolton's claims are accurate, none of it changes the basic facts, which the president's defense team succinctly outlined Saturday. 
 
Nonetheless, the target of this hit piece disguised as a news story is a handful of Republican senators who could force so-called "witnesses" (to what?) to be called, dragging out this process and setting up a Kavanaugh-style situation with new accusations and new demands for witnesses every day.
 
By the way, many in the media are citing polling data showing that Americans overwhelmingly support calling witnesses during the Senate's impeachment trial.  
 
What they fail to point out is that many conservatives support calling Hunter Biden and the so-called "whistleblower," who has yet to face any serious public scrutiny or be crossed-examined by the president's lawyers.
 
 
 
The President's Team Makes Its Case
 
President Trump's defense team finally got the chance to make their case Saturday after Adam Schiff and the other House managers exhausted all their time.  The presentation by Michael Purpura, deputy counsel to the president, was particularly effective.  Here's an excerpt of his remarks:
 
"Once you sweep away all of the bluster and innuendo, the selective leaks . . . the staged public hearings, what we're left with are six key facts that have not and will not change.
 
"First, the transcript shows that the president did not condition either security assistance or a meeting on anything. The paused security assistance funds aren't even mentioned on the call.
 
"Second, President Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have repeatedly said that there was no quid pro quo and no pressure on them to review anything.
 
"Third, President Zelensky and high-ranking Ukrainian officials did not even know . . . the security assistance was paused until the end of August, over a month after the July 25 call.
 
"Fourth, not a single witness testified that the president himself said that there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance, a presidential meeting, or anything else.
 
"Fifth, the security assistance flowed on September 11 and a presidential meeting took place on September 25 without the Ukrainian government announcing any investigations.
 
"Finally, the . . . drive to impeach the president does not and cannot change the fact . . . that President Trump has been a better friend and stronger supporter of Ukraine than his predecessor."
 
By the way, you may recall that last week I questioned why Adam Schiff was leading the impeachment charge given his own serious credibility issues.  Not surprisingly, the president's lawyers made it a point to zero in on Schiff during their opening statements.
 
 
 
Never Again
 
Today marks the 75th anniversary of the Soviet liberation of the Nazi concentration camps at Auschwitz, revealing some of the worst horrors of the Holocaust.  More than one million people were systematically murdered there. 
 
In 2005, as then-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was threatening a second Holocaust by vowing to "wipe Israel off the map," the United Nations voted to recognize January 27th as International Holocaust Remembrance Day. 
 
President Trump issued a proclamation recognizing the significance of this day and reaffirming "our steadfast commitment to confronting the vile poison of anti-Semitism wherever and whenever it arises."

I join President Trump and all men and women of goodwill in standing against the evil of anti-Semitism, and standing proudly with the Jewish state of Israel.
 
Speaking of Israel, Israeli officials noted over the weekend that the country's aviation system came under sustained cyberattack during last week's World Holocaust Forum in Jerusalem.  Israel fended off more than 800 attacks "aimed at disrupting the flight paths of more than 60 planes carrying heads of state, kings and presidents."  The attacks originated from Iran, China, North Korea, Russia, and Poland.