More Anti-Trump Distortion From The NYT

What the NYT says the Bolton book says: 

"Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says"!!!!11111

What the Bolton book actually says:

Bolton news is fuzzy. Bolton isn't saying Trump tied Ukraine weapons $ to opening a Burisma/2016 probe. Bolton says Trump wanted Ukraine to "[turn] over all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related Mr. Biden & and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine." Huh? pic.twitter.com/RNiBM6ANwT

— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) January 26, 2020

   A little snapshot of our predicament. To make it really representative, Trump seems to have gone off on Bolton via Twitter last night... 

   Note also that the NYT is still pretending that election meddling by Ukraine is a debunked "conspiracy theory." Russian "meddling," however...an absolutely proven threat to our democracy! What could be more dangerous than Facebook ads! Ukraine, however: a mix of (a) perfectly legitimate activities and (b) conspiracy theories! 

   More and more I think it's imperative for Trump to beat this rap and do as much as he can in the next five years to fight back against our Orwellian cultural overlords... It's a gamble, obviously. We'll still have a loose cannon with his finger on the button... But more and more this seems like a risk worth taking. If he's convicted, the Dems win the presidency in November, and we're sunk.

   I do want the truth to out...though, honestly, a huge chunk of the truth has already outed: we know the Dems are willing to manufacture and sell even the most outlandish conspiracy theories if it suits their political ends. And their wingmen in the news media are right there guarding their six, basically no matter how obviously loony their accusations get. And on the other side...Trump, God help us.

   These Bolton revelations don't seem that bad, but they're spannable and, obviously, already spun. They could force more witnesses, which is what Schiff et al. want--throw more and more wildcards into the mix and eventually something significant might break their way. 

   And, of course, it's possible they're right. But at this point, I'm less sure how much that matters. the realpolitik of the situation is: it's a battle between two dangerous factions, and we need the one to win that's likely to be better for the country--and the world, actually.

   That could all be utterly confused, of course.