Odious Max Boot attacks Trump with Innuendo and Rumor Opinion is fine, but Boot is of the “Sheriff Jones, do you beat your wife?” school of journalism.

Home  »  Conspiracies  »  Odious Max Boot attacks Trump with Innuendo and Rumor
Print This Post Print This Post
Aug 1, 2018 No Comments ›› admin

By Lynn Woolley

When self-described conservative Max Boot writes a column or goes on cable TV, you’ll find lots of opinions, but not much truth.

Boot is emblematic of that segment of the Right that hates Trump and isn’t afraid to make preposterous claims, or even make stuff up.

Tucker Carlson with Boot

In his latest column for the Washington Post, he’s so excited about CNN’s report that Michael Cohen may tell the special counsel, Robert Mueller, that Trump knew about the famous Trump Tower meeting.

He might as well say “we got him now.”

He talks about “substantial evidence” that Russian intervention got Trump elected – but he fails to name any of it. Boot lives in a world where he’s always right and you should take his word as gospel. He refers to Trump supporters as “Putin Republicans,” and – without evidence – claims that “Trump and his minions” worked with Russia to fix the election.

Take a look at some of Boot’s more ignorant statements in his WaPo column.

Here’s Boot’s opening blast at Trump – that it is super significant that candidate Trump knew about the meeting at Trump Tower:

It is hard to exaggerate the potential significance of the news, first reported by CNN, that the president’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, can testify that Donald Trump both knew in advance and approved of the June 9, 2016, meeting at Trump Tower between his campaign’s high command and Kremlin emissaries who promised dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Apparently it’s not that hard to exaggerate this story since Boot just did. I’ll ask the question: “What of it?” It’s not illegal to meet with foreigners. It’s not illegal to know about a meeting. It’s not illegal to see what someone has to say.

Boot on C-SPAN

How convenient for Boot’s side that he totally ignores the accepted fact that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC were laundering money through the Perkins Coie Law Firm to pay Fusion GPS to get dirt on Trump from former British spy Christopher Steele.

So Trump knew about a meeting with a Russian while Hillary was paying for opposition research that mostly came from Russian sources. Truth, however, does not matter to Boot.

Then he makes this ridiculous claim:

There was already substantial evidence that the Russian intervention helped to make Trump president and that individuals associated with the Trump election effort, from campaign chairman Paul Manafort on down, had dealings with the Russians. What has been missing is proof that the president was personally involved in these sordid machinations.

I call BS.

All “seventeen” of our intelligence agencies have been reported to say that the Russians interfered in the election – as they have tried to do for decades. The “substantial evidence” is still missing and I notice that Boot does not offer up even a single piece if it.

A big question is: “why would the Russians prefer Trump to Hillary, since the Obama administration was so ‘flexible’?”

Video: A classic battle: Tucker vs Boot on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” (July 12, 2017)

Then, Boot places all his Trump impeachment hopes on one man – former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen.

What has been lacking so far is the “smoking gun.” Cohen may just supply it, if his purported testimony is credible and corroborated (big ifs).

Big ifs indeed. Cohen violated attorney-client privilege and is out to save his own skin. He may not just sing; he may compose. His testimony may be worthless. In any case, if you hate Trump, Cohen is a poor witness on which to base your hopes.

Boot then insults every American that voted for Trump and still supports him.

We are very, very close to the Putin Republicans arguing that they’re glad he worked with the Kremlin to beat “Crooked Hillary.” In fact, some MAGA-heads have already made this very case. It is, after all, the natural culmination of the hysteria of so many Trumpists.

He names one obscure former White House aide as evidence – a guy named Michael Anton. That’s ignorant of Boot, but it’s more evidence than Boot usually puts up.

Boot’s opinions exists as a service to the word “if.”

Reality check: It is not OK for the president and his minions to work with a foreign power to influence a U.S. election. It is shocking that this argument even has to be made. If the allegations of collusion are true, then the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to violate numerous statutes.

Yes, Max – IF the allegations are true. This column is all about your dreams.

Then, Boot goes into “obstruction justice” with more ifs.

Above all, there is obstruction of justice: If Trump knew about the offer of Russian help, that greatly strengthened his motive to fire FBI Director James Comey to stop the inquiry into the “Russia thing.”

With Boot, it’s all about innuendo and speculation and the fact that he, Boot, is a hater of a President who has, so far, done an amazing job of bringing us back from the Obama disaster.

As a newspaper consumer, I have to question why a Max Boot column is even printed. Opinion is fine, but Boot is of the “Sheriff Jones, do you beat your wife?” school of journalism. That’s a euphemism for a made-up story.

Video: Amazing confrontation between Boot and Stephen Cohen on CNN.

What happens when Boot debates a true Russian scholar like Stephen Cohen?

Cohen is a professor emeritus from Princeton and New York University. He is 80- years-old at this writing. He knows Russian history quite well and is always willing to debate it – civilly. But that’s not Boot.

Max the Ignorant went on a split screen debate on Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN to make wild accusations and insults against Cohen, who didn’t stand for it. Boot made his accusations without substance, while Cohen went back into the history of U.S.-Russian relations and made valid points based on fact.

I used to wonder why Tucker Carlson despises Max Boot. I wondered how Boot ever got a job at the Wall Street Journal. The former – I now understand. The latter – not so much.

lynn@BeLogical.com

Tagged with: , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

%d bloggers like this: