More on the Hunter laptop letter from the fifty-one
I’ve reported on the basics of this already, but here’s more detail:
The extraordinary admission by career intelligence officer Michael J. Morell provides stunning evidence that the now-infamous letter from 51 security officials in October 2021 was not an organic intelligence community initiative but rather a political dirty trick by Blinken and the Biden campaign.
Jordan sent a letter demanding Blinken answer a series of questions about Morell’s stunning testimony, as lawmakers weighed the enormity of America’s top diplomat being willing to accuse a nuclear-armed superpower of interfering in the 2020 election without evidence. That letter included major snippets of Morell’s testimony.
Morell, who retired as deputy CIA director after a long and storied career and served as its acting chief, was on the short list in fall 2020 to be Biden’s CIA director when he became involved in the letter…
In a transcribed interview with the House Judiciary government weaponization subcommittee, Morell admitted he got involved with the letter at Blinken’s request and later received a call from the Biden campaign thanking him when Joe Biden used the letter and its false implication to blunt criticism of Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings
The transcript of Morell’s interview showed he had no intent to write the statement and that Blinken’s “call triggered” his actions.
More at the link.
This is perhaps the most interesting part of Morell’s testimony. It’s his explanation as to why he did it:
“There were two intents,” he said. “One intent was to share our concern with the American people that the Russians were playing on this issue; and, two, it was [to] help Vice President.” When asked why he wanted to help Biden, he replied, “because I wanted him to win the election.”
Notice that he says that he and his confederates had “concern” that they wanted to “share with the American people” about the fact that Russians were “playing” on the issue – not that Russians had actually faked the laptop. Just that they might somehow take advantage of the reporting about the laptop. Plus, of course, that Morell wanted Biden to win, probably for personal reasons (to get the big job, and although he ultimately didn’t get it he certainly could not have known that at the time) and because isn’t it obvious that Biden would be a great president?
I found a comment at Ace’s that I think says it all: “I miss back when I was naive enough to think that something would happen because of something like this.”
And also this one: ” Is it a ‘bombshell’ if every single sentient human being already knew it? Just saying.”
Well, we didn’t know the details. But I never doubted it was orchestrated by people trying to boost Biden in the election; that’s a no-brainer. It’s really not even a surprise is that it was Blinken. It also wouldn’t be a surprise if Biden himself had called the guy.
Morell was a member in good standing of the “Deep State.” Unfortunately, the Democrats did not yet realize they controlled the CIA and reverted to their old complaints about “torture” and rendition. Now, they are fine with it.
going back to benghazi, his memoir is like watching paint dry
meanwhile dems do a shout out to ghannouchi militant islamist in tunisia, and through channels empty out the rest of the gitmo network, this time to Algeria,
stunning evidence
I wouldn’t qualify any of these revelations as particularly “stunning”. This was pretty much what I and many other people assumed to be the case. It’d only be “stunning” for people who naively seem to believe that our government and media wasn’t deeply corrupt, biased, and amoral.
At this point it would only be stunning if there were any real consequences for the actors involved in this.
of course I have a theory why they tanked the benghazi inquiry, based on the information of the ring leader of the plot bin qumu who had been released from guantanamo to ali salem prison and was allowed to excape where he helped train the rebels,
these intelligence officers in balance are good for little, im not going to say entirely useless, just largely so, how often have they protected our nations interests and how often have they protected their House, Clinton Obama or Biden,
neo,
I think ya gotta fix that link to “ace” . . . did you mean . . .
https://ace.mu.nu/archives/404094.php
where you write “I found a comment” (third paragraph from the bottom)?
M J R:
Thanks, fixed.
Rules, laws, the Constitution, they only work when the majority of people holding power are willing to conform to them.
It’s pretty clear that this is not the case today. We’re pretty soon going to end up like any developing country, where rules are for suckers who can’t afford powerful friends.
People keep doing what’s working for them, unless a cost is imposed. If one side wins by breaking all the norms and changing the rules wherever they can, they’re not going to stop until it hurts them.
It’s not going to matter what comes out in hearings if the media continues to act as stenographers for the Deep State and the Democrats, who control the administration of elections and decide which ballots get to count.
This kind of thing can only be countered by acting locally in concert with like-minded people to fix our institutions from the bottom up. Chasing media squirrels and hurling anathemas over who the R nominee should be is a waste of time, because whoever that person is, is already defeated by the math of the Electoral College and the takeover by the Dems of the ballot counting in the only states that could tip it.
Changing the guy at the top doesn’t do anything anyway. The Deep State will not be showing any more loyalty to DeSantis or Elder or any other non-orange alternative, the media will not be showing any more fairness.
By all means, lobby for your guy. Vote for whatever R emerges from the primary. Wait for the ballots to be counted until the Dems get the answer they want. And when that’s out of your system, work to elect people in your state, county, city, and school district who will take the fight to where it needs to go. This will mean changing the rules and firing the people who aren’t reliable. If they’re not willing or able to do that, they’re part of the problem. Strong and effective red states can mitigate a lot of this.
Rule of law is a human invention that has cultural prerequisites. When the culture no longer defends or upholds rule of law it won’t continue.
It seems to me the red/blue divide is between the culture that still tries to uphold rule of law and another side that is grasping for absolute power.
The fact of the matter is, If it became public knowledge that every single thing that’s been alleged to be happening since 2016 were 100% true, I don’t believe a single damn thing happens to ANYONE.
The template may have come from the “17 intelligence agencies” letter during the 2016 campaign. Did anyone seriously think that Coast Guard, or Marine Corps, or Treasury or Energy Department intelligence agencies had done a detailed, independent study of the email leaks? Most likely they just went along with what they were told, but “17 intelligence agencies,” like “51 former intelligence officers” was a good talking point.
The default setting in the intelligence community is to assume without evidence that the Russians are helping people one doesn’t like, and then to write reports that give that impression without claiming to have the final truth about the matter, so that one can easily back away from criticism if the finding turns out not to be true. Were Arbenz and Mosaddeq really pro-USSR back in the fifties? Maybe, maybe not. This has been going on for a very long time.
yes both were, mossadeq was backed almost exclusively by the tudeh, he had angered the mullahs and the merchants, but the bureau actually had the laptop with the evidence, the company probably had a backstop in cofer black, a character type played by gregory itzin, in the 10s
the reverse is often true,
https://babalublog.com/2013/07/02/how-bacardi-sold-castro-to-the-cia-using-vilma-espin/