Pull One Lousy Thread And It All Unravels

1. 86

   Sharlee01posted 20 months ago

   So, Do You Like Puzzles? 
   
   Politico --- OCT 19/  2020 Hunter Biden story is Russian disinformation, dozens of former intel officials say
   
   "More than 50 former intelligence officials signed a letter casting doubt on the provenance of a New York Post story on the former vice president’s son
   
   "More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
   
   The letter, signed on Monday, centers around a batch of documents released by the New York Post last week that purport to tie the Democratic nominee to his son Hunter’s business dealings. Under the banner headline “Biden Secret E-mails,” the Post reported it was given a copy of Hunter Biden’s laptop hard drive by President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who said he got it from a Mac shop owner in Delaware who also alerted the FBI." Please read on"...  https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/1 … nfo-430276
   
   OCT 22 2020 Biden Trump debate --- Biden uses the letter bit on Trump in the debate enter at 1.35 to hear Joe bring up the letter.
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPiofmZGb8o
   
   APRIL 20 2023 FAST FORWARD --- "Biden campaign, Blinken orchestrated intel letter to discredit Hunter Biden laptop story, ex-CIA official says
   51 former intelligence officials signed a letter in October 2020 saying stories about Hunter Biden's laptop were Russian disinformation"
   
   "A former CIA official testified that then-Biden campaign senior adviser, now-Secretary of State Antony Blinken "played a role in the inception" of the public statement signed by current and past intelligence officials that claimed the Hunter Biden laptop was part of a Russian disinformation campaign.
   
   Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell testified before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees and revealed that Blinken was "the impetus" of the public statement signed in October 2020 that implied the laptop belonging to Hunter Biden was disinformation." read more   https://www.foxnews.com/politics/state- … over-story
   
   APRIL  21, 2023   --   State Department ducks questions on charge that Blinken orchestrated Hunter Biden laptop cover story.
   Blinken allegedly coordinated a letter meant to downplay the story about the laptop
   
     "The State Department on Friday refused to answer questions about a claim from a former CIA official that Antony Blinken, now Biden's secretary of State, led efforts in 2020 to have intelligence officials write a letter that said the Hunter Biden laptop story was part of a Russian disinformation campaign.
   
   The House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees said Thursday that former CIA Deputy Michael Morell told the committee that Blinken was the "impetus" for the letter that was ultimately signed by 51 current and former intel officers. That letter said stories about Biden’s laptop were a Russian ploy, a claim that was later shown to be false.
   
   On Friday, a State Department spokesman said the department would not be answering any questions about Blinken’s alleged involvement in the letter.
   
   "That is… not a State Department issue so I don’t have a comment for you on that," said spokesman Vedant Patel.
   
   The committee letter noted that Blinken allegedly helped gather signatures for the letter in mid-October, 2020, before President Biden was elected and before Blinken became his secretary of state. Patel seemed to lean on that timeline as a rationale for why the State Department would not be answering questions about the matter.
   
   "It is not a State Department issue, and I don’t really have a comment on this from the State Department," he said.
   
   When pressed on whether the allegation might affect the department – for example, eroding trust in Blinken and his team, Patel dodged again.
   
   "Again, this is not an issue that is an issue of the State Department. It has [nothing] to do with U.S. foreign policy or the work of this department, so I don’t have a comment for you on this," he said.
   
   Republicans say the now-discredited letter was orchestrated in order to help deflect from criticism of then-candidate Biden, as the Hunter Biden laptop revealed messages that pointed to efforts by the Bidens to trade on their name. Signatories included former Obama CIA Director John Brennan, former Obama DNI James Clapper, and former CIA director, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, among others.
   
   News Week ---   "Hunter Biden has become the center of renewed political controversy after it emerged former acting CIA director Mike Morell helped organize a letter by 50 intelligence community figures, ahead of the 2020 presidential election, suggesting leaked emails from Hunter's laptop were Russian disinformation.
   
   Morrell made the confession in private sworn testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, saying he acted after speaking to Antony Blinken, then part of the Biden campaign and now secretary of state, because he wanted Joe Biden to "win the election."
   https://www.newsweek.com/biden-team-spa … ss-1795950
   
   "Joe Biden’s presidential campaign prompted former acting CIA Director Mike Morell to “help Biden” by organizing 50 colleagues to sign a letter in October 2020 falsely claiming that damning emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop published by The Post were Russian disinformation.
   
   In private sworn testimony, Morell told the House Judiciary Committee that Antony Blinken, now secretary of state, was the senior campaign official who reached out to him “on or before” Oct. 17, 2020, three days after The Post published an email from the laptop suggesting Hunter had introduced his Ukrainian business partner to his father, then-Vice President Biden.
   
   Morell, identified as a potential CIA director under Biden, said he organized the letter to “help Vice President Biden … because I wanted him to win the election.”
   
   Until Blinken’s call, Morell told House investigators, he had no intention of writing any statement exonerating Biden.
   
   But he agreed that the conversation with Blinken “triggered … that intent” in him.
   
   At 10:53 p.m. the night of the call, Blinken emailed Morell a USA Today article claiming that the FBI was examining whether Hunter’s laptop was part of a “disinformation campaign.”
   
   At the bottom of Blinken’s email was the signature block of Andrew Bates, then-director of rapid response for the Biden campaign.
   
   Morell said he ​​did “a little bit of my own research,” then reached out to retired CIA senior operations officer Marc Polymeropoulos for assistance in compiling the letter discrediting The Post’s reporting.
   
   The left ignores the real Biden Delaware drama to satisfy their bias
   Over the next two days, Morell gathered signatures from 51 former intelligence officials, including himself and four other former CIA directors, including John Brennan and Leon Panetta.
   
   Morell testified that he sent an email telling Nick Shapiro, former deputy chief of staff to Brennan, that the Biden campaign wanted the statement to go to a particular reporter at the Washington Post and that he should send the statement to the campaign as well.
   
   Morell did not recall why he told Shapiro the campaign wanted the statement to go to this reporter first and admitted that he may have spoken to the campaign on another occasion. "
   
   In the end, Shapiro took the letter to POLITICO, which published it on Oct. 19 under the headline: “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former officials say.”
   
   The letter alleged that the New York Post story “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
   
   The letter was used by candidate Joe Biden during the Oct. 22 debate against President Donald Trump to deflect accusations about his involvement in his family’s international influence-peddling operation, which had garnered millions of dollars from China and Ukraine while he was vice president."  https://nypost.com/2023/04/20/biden-cam … op-letter/
   
   POLITICA? HEY!, that's where we started off here on this thread.  UMM.........
   
   Reply from the White House ---   "In response to the claims, the White House told Newsweek that House Republicans are "weaponizing their power to go after" opponents and "re-litigate the 2020 election with misleading claims." News Week
   
   Well, I would say this is quite the puzzle is it not?
   
   Thoughts, or no biggie?

   replyreport
2. 86

   Sharlee01posted 20 months ago

   White House accuses House Judiciary Republicans of 'highly misleading' Hunter Biden leak
   White House spox Ian Sams pointed to fuller transcript of former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell's testimony to lawmakers and said House Republicans were misleading the media
   
   "White House spokesman Ian Sams accused House Judiciary Committee Republicans and Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, of making a "highly misleading selective leak" regarding Secretary of State Antony Blinken's alleged role in discrediting the Hunter Biden laptop story.
   
   In a letter sent to Blinken Thursday, Jordan and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner, R-Ohio, revealed testimony from former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell, who said Blinken, then a senior adviser to President Biden's campaign, was "the impetus" of the public statement signed by current and past intelligence officials that claimed the Hunter Biden laptop was part of a Russian disinformation campaign.
   
   "We are examining that public statement signed by 51 former intelligence officials that falsely discredited a New York Post story regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop as supposed Russian disinformation," the Republicans wrote. "As part of our oversight, we have learned that you played a role in the inception of this statement while serving as a Biden campaign advisor, and we therefore request your assistance with our oversight."
   
   They alleged that Morell's testimony showed it is "apparent" that the Biden campaign "played an active role in the origins of the public statement, which had the effect of helping to suppress the Hunter Biden story and preventing American citizens from making a fully informed decision during the 2020 presidential election." Read more
   
   https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white- … biden-leak

   replyreport
   1. 96

      Readmikenowposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Isn't this just proving what most of us thought all along? It is what I would refer to as vindication.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Sharlee01posted 20 months agoin reply to this

         Yes, agree. I put this thread together so we will have a place to add any and all information on what looks like political weaponization. I mean asking 50 x CIA to sign a letter a few days before the Trump/Biden debate that outlined their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation  --- appears to be very much interfering in a Presidential election. And then old Joe used the letter to
         demean Trump.
         
         And to find out via the CIA agent how it all went down, and his biased reasons for even signing and pushing others to sign the letter.
         
         And we can't forget how the FBI buried the Hunter laptop story as "Russian interference
         .https://nypost.com/2022/08/24/fbi-warned-agents-off-hunter-biden-laptop-due-to-election-whistleblowers/
         https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fbi … ower-says/
         
         The weaponization of our current government is very much something many are willing to accept.
         
         Not me... I think it important Americans are aware of what is being done by the Biden administration, even well before the election.

         replyreport
3. 72

   Kathleen Cochranposted 20 months ago

   As in everything else, let this situation run its course.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Sharlee01posted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Thanks for joining in.

      replyreport
4. 93

   Kenna McHughposted 20 months ago

   I find this interesting: https://youtu.be/5DR5vdOXJag

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Sharlee01posted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Green has championed the impeachment of Biden
      
      "According to a recent report by Axios listing a total of 14 impeachment attempts launched by the Republican Party, two more impeachment resolutions were filed by House Republicans against Attorney General Merrick Garland, while Vice President Kamala Harris, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas were the targets of one impeachment article each.
      
      Last week, Greene introduced a new article of impeachment against Biden "for endangering, compromising, and undermining the energy security of the United States by selling oil from the United States' Strategic Petroleum Reserve to foreign nations," a practice that the Trump administration also engaged with.
      
      Previous impeachment resolutions launched by the Georgia representative included accusations against Biden of "usurping Congress's legislative authority" by empowering the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to extend the moratorium on residential evictions during the pandemic, leaving behind "thousands of American civilians and Afghan allies" during the hasty withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan last year, abusing power and "endangering the security" of the country."
      
      On January 21, 2021, Greene introduced an impeachment article saying Biden abused the power of his office by allowing his son, Hunter Biden, "to influence the domestic policy of a foreign nation and accept benefits from foreign nationals in exchange for favors."
      https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylo … en-1747805
      
      I feel her impeachment articles should have been entertained, more so now.

      replyreport
   2. 72

      Kathleen Cochranposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Please do not take anything this woman says as fact. At the very least, take it with a truckload of salt. She has proved herself to be of questionable judgment and motives.
      
      I know. She's my congresswoman.

      replyreport
5. 76

   Valeantposted 20 months ago

   And when you go to the actual deposition, and not listen to the gaslighting coming out of Jim Jordan's office, you get a much different reality as usual.  One built to mislead people to hate their own current government, and one built on lies about what Morell actually stated in his testimony.  When will these people stop lying to you?  Even worse - when will you stop just blindly believing them?
   
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6bwHRGVq-o&t=181s

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Sharlee01posted 20 months agoin reply to this

      I have found the Letter that  Judicial Committee wrote and sent to Blinkin. I would hope you will read it in full. The letter concentrates on the issues the Committee has with Blinkin. 
      
      It would seem the media sites have been quoting Morell accurately.  I have also read the Dem's transcript, which does contain all of what has been quoted.
      
      Do you feel what you have read in regard to the part Blinkin played in kicking off the letter that was signed by retired CIA  is in some way false? Do you think Morell was not being truthful?
      
      Morell seems to have laid out what went down pretty clearly.
      
      "The Honorable Antony Blinken
      Secretary
      U.S. Department of State
      Washington, DC 20520
      Dear Secretary Blinken:
      The Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence are conducting oversight of federal law enforcement and intelligence matters within our respective jurisdictions. We are examining the origins of the infamous public statement signed by 51 former intelligence officials that falsely discredited a New York Post story regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop as supposed Russian disinformation. As part of our oversight, we have learned that you played a role in the inception of this statement while serving as a Biden campaign advisor, and we therefore request your assistance with our oversight.
      
      On October 14, 2020, the New York Post published a report detailing how Hunter Biden used the position and influence of his father, now-President Joe Biden, for personal gain with the apparent awareness of President Biden.1 The article reported on several emails found on a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden that he had abandoned in a Delaware computer shop.  The contents of the emails cast doubt on President Biden’s previous denials of speaking to his son about his international
      business dealings. Within five days of the article, on October 19, 2020, 51 former intelligence officials released a public statement attempting to discredit the contents of the New York Post’s reporting about Hunter Biden, stating that the story “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”3 News publications immediately ran with the statement, with Politico publishing a story with the conclusive headline, “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former officials say.”4 Social media companies simultaneously restricted access to the Post story, including Twitter locking the Post’s and then-White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany’s
      
      1 Emma-Jo Morris & Gabrielle Fonrouge, Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian
      businessman to VP dad, N.Y. POST (Oct. 14, 2020).
      
      Jim Clapper et al., Public Statement on the Hunter Biden Emails (Oct. 19, 2020).
      4 Natasha Bertrand, Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say, POLITICO (Oct. 19,
      2020).
      The Honorable Antony Blinken
      April 20, 2023
      Page 2
      accounts for sharing a link to the article.5 During the final presidential debate on October 22, then-Vice President Biden cited the public statement to rebut President Trump’s criticism of the
      
      Biden family business dealings, saying: Look, there are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what this, [President Trump’s] accusing me of is a Russian plan. They have said this this has all the characteristics—four—five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except him and his good friend Rudy Giuliani.6 Subsequent reporting revealed that the New York Post story was not, as the public statement claimed and then-Vice President Biden parroted, part of a “Russian information operation.”7 This revelation nearly two years after the fact, however, was little consolation.
      The concerted efforts to dismiss the serious allegations in the Post’s reporting and to suppress any discussion of the story played a substantial role in the 2020 election. The Committees recently conducted a
      
      transcribed interview with Michael Morell, a former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and one of the 51 signatories
      of the public statement. In his transcribed interview, Morell testified that on or around October 17, 2020, you reached out to him to discuss the Hunter Biden laptop story.8 At the time you served as a senior advisor to the Biden campaign. According to Morell, although your outreach
      was couched as simply gathering Morell’s reaction to the Post story, it set in motion the events that led to the issuance of the public statement.
      9 Morell testified:
      Q: But, prior to [Secretary Blinken’s] call, you – you did not
      have any intent to write this statement?
      A: I did not.
      Q: Okay. So his call triggered –
      A: It did, yes.
      Q: – that intent in you?
      
      The Honorable Antony Blinken
      April 20, 2023
      Page 3
      A: Yes. Absolutely. 
      10. That same day, October 17, you also emailed Morell an article published in USA Today alleging that the FBI was examining whether the Hunter Biden laptop was part of a “disinformation campaign.”11 The very bottom of the email you sent to Morell included the signature block of
      Andrew Bates, then-director of rapid response for the Biden campaign.12
      Morell testified that his communication with you was one of a few communications he had with the Biden campaign, explaining that he also received a call from Steve Ricchetti, Chairman of the Biden campaign, following the October 22 debate to thank him for writing the statement. 13 He testified: After the debate – I think it was after the debate – in fact, I’m pretty sure it was after the debate – I got a phone call from Jeremy Bash,
      who I work with at Beacon and who is active politically. And Jeremy
      said: Do you have a minute to talk to Steve Ricchetti? I said: Of course.  He was the head of the Biden campaign at the time. And Jeremy got him on the line, and Steve thanked me for putting the statement out. And that was the extent of the conversation.14 Morell also explained that the Biden campaign helped to strategize about the public release of the statement. Morell testified that he sent an email telling Nick Shapiro, former Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to the Director of the CIA John Brennan, that the Biden campaign wanted the statement to go to a particular reporter at the Washington Post first and that he should send the statement to the campaign when he sent the letter to the reporter. 15 Morell testified, however, that he did not recall why he told Shapiro the campaign wanted the statement to go to this reporter first and admitted that he may have spoken to the campaign on another occasion.16 Morell further explained that one of his two goals in releasing the statement was to help then-Vice President Biden in the debate and to assist him in winning the election.17 He testified:
      Q: What was the intent of the statement?
      
      The Honorable Antony Blinken
      April 20, 2023
      Page 4
      A: There were two intents. 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 Biden.
      18 Chairman Jordan: You wanted to help the Vice President why?
      A: Because I wanted him to win the election.
      Chairman Jordan: You wanted him to win; that’s why?
      A: Yes, sir.
      19 Based on Morell’s testimony, it is apparent that the Biden campaign played an active role in the origins of the public statement, which had the effect of helping to suppress the Hunter Biden story and preventing American citizens from making a fully informed decision during the
      2020 presidential election.20 Although the statement’s signatories have an unquestioned right to free speech and free association—which we do not dispute—their reference to their national security credentials lent weight to the story and suggested access to specialized information unavailable to other Americans. This concerted effort to minimize and suppress public
      dissemination of the serious allegations about the Biden family was a grave disservice to all American citizens’ informed participation in our democracy.  Based on the information we have obtained to date, we believe that you possess material that would advance our oversight and inform potential legislative reforms. Accordingly, we ask that you please provide the following information and records in your personal possession:
      1. Identify all people with whom you communicated about the inception, drafting, editing, signing, publishing, or promotion of the “Public Statement on the Hunter Biden Emails” dated October 19, 2020, during the period October 14, 2020, to November 24, 2020; and 2. Produce all documents and communications referring or relating to the “Public Statement
      on the Hunter Biden Emails” dated October 19, 2020, sent or received between October 14, 2020, and November 24, 2020.
      Please produce this material as soon as possible but no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 4, 2023. Because these events occurred prior to your nomination and confirmation as Secretary of State, we seek your cooperation with our requests in your personal, and not your official,
      
      The Honorable Antony Blinken
      April 20, 2023
      Page 5
      capacity. Although our requests do not implicate Department equities, and accordingly there should be no basis for the Department to interfere with our oversight, we have addressed these requests to you in your official capacity initially as a courtesy. If you are represented by private
      counsel in this matter, please ask your attorney to contact Judiciary Committee staff promptly on your behalf at (202) 225-6906.
      Thank you for your attention to this matter.
      Sincerely,
      Jim Jordan Michael R. Turner
      Chairman Chairman
      Committee on the Judiciary Permanent Select Committee on
      Intelligence
      https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-s … ails_0.pdf

      replyreport
   2. 83

      GA Andersonposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Do you think the Morell quotes in the Jordon letter, which appear to support the Right's premise, are fake?
      
      It appears that whether Blinken instigated the letter is arguable, but that Morell testified part of his intent was to help Biden seems true — unless the quoted testimony is fake.
      
      Is there a full transcript available?
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Valeantposted 20 months agoin reply to this

         I think the Morell quotes are real, but when you add in all of the Morell quotes, you do not arrive at Jordan's conclusions about Blinken.  Asking someone's opinion is not the same as orchestrating a letter.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Sharlee01posted 20 months agoin reply to this

            Would it not be beneficial to see the full transcript?  This would certainly help clarify the context of what promoted Jordan to even write the letter to Blinken.

            replyreport
            1. 57

               BKLYN1975posted 20 months agoin reply to this

               Deleted
               1. 98

                  DrMark1961posted 20 months agoin reply to this

                  It is my understanding that US government employees only have the right to free speech if they are speaking as a private citizen. If they attach their job titles to try to influence the speech it is no longer protected speech.
                  
                  https://www.acludc.org/en/know-your-rig … -amendment
                  
                  Is this correct?

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     Valeantposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                     As usual, you left out something.  They are not US government employees.  They are former US government employees.  Just the latest omission to try and make a round peg fit into a square hole of far-right distortions.

                     replyreport
                     1. 98

                        DrMark1961posted 20 months agoin reply to this

                        I asked if this is correct. I did not realize they were former US employeess.
                        
                        I am not sure why you feel the need to constantly be so offensive and crawl among the slime making nasty comments about those you disagree with. I can only surmise that this is one of the leftist deflection methods they teach you to use.

                        replyreport
                        1. 76

                           Valeantposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                           If pointing out the constant stream of omissions by the far-right in these threads that create distortions used to try and attack the patriots that serve in the United States government is offensive to some, I suggest they do better research before posting easily identifiable falsehoods.

                           replyreport
                           1. 98

                              DrMark1961posted 20 months agoin reply to this

                              Your answer displays exactly why no one tries to learn from the fasicts on the left. A simple question leads to a rant full of attacks against those you disagree with.

                              replyreport
                              1. 76

                                 Valeantposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                                 Who cares about learning from the left?  How about learning the basics about a topic before posting?  It's been widely publicized that these were former government employees.  Stating they are current is just displaying a lack of education and distorting the facts about a topic that is years old. 
                                 
                                 Some of us have been in this forum for a decade and that trick of distorting information to smear government officials is not new.  But the patience to accept the distortions that absolutely have a bad intent by the side that has already violently attacked their own Capitol and the FBI has long since worn thin.  That side are not patriots - they are spreading disinformation that can lead to violence against those officials.  So I have no problem if that group feels attacked by calling out their fabrications - because calling out that disinformation may lead to less violence against our own government and that is absolutely worth doing.

                                 replyreport
               2. 86

                  Sharlee01posted 20 months agoin reply to this

                  We all have a right to free speech. However, did you read that letter from the 52 former CIA officials?
                  
                  OCt 20 2020 --  Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe
                  We all have the right to freedom of speech. But it was being reported by  John Radclitte  --  DNI John Ratcliffe says info on Hunter Biden's laptop isn’t Russian disinformation.  https://nypost.com/2020/10/19/john-ratc … formation/
                  
                  OCT 20 2020 50 former intelligence officials warn NY Post story sounds like Russian Disinformation
                  https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5 … e-russian/
                  
                  I tend to believe the Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe
                  
                  I also like real journalists that do leg work. Provide names, quotes, and dates.
                  https://nypost.com/2022/03/18/intellige … den-story/

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     Valeantposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                     Ratcliffe?
                     
                     President Donald Trump announced on July 28, 2019, that he intended to nominate Ratcliffe to replace Dan Coats as Director of National Intelligence.  Ratcliffe withdrew after Republican senators raised concerns about him, former intelligence officials said he might politicize intelligence, and media revealed Ratcliffe's embellishments regarding his prosecutorial experience in terrorism and immigration cases.
                     
                     Yeah, this guy's totally trustworthy.  Even GOP Senators had issues with him.

                     replyreport
                  2. 57

                     BKLYN1975posted 20 months agoin reply to this

                     Deleted
                     1. 86

                        Sharlee01posted 20 months agoin reply to this

                        See you point

                        replyreport
   3. 86

      Sharlee01posted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Val, have you found the full transcript of the interview? If so please share.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Valeantposted 20 months agoin reply to this

         I only did a cursory search and found the parts that were mentioned in that link - which Jordan conveniently leaves out of his accusation, in typical Jim Jordan gaslighting fashion.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Sharlee01posted 20 months agoin reply to this

            Jorden was careful in the letter not to out and out accuse Blinken.  But asked for his personal documents.

            replyreport
         2. 86

            Sharlee01posted 20 months agoin reply to this

            We deserve to see the full transcript.

            replyreport
   4. 72

      Kathleen Cochranposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Valeant: "A dog with a bone" comes to mind. Also, White Water, Benghazi, Secretary Clinton's emails . . .  It never matters that there is nothing to find. It's about the search that never ends.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Valeantposted 20 months agoin reply to this

         True, they are great at accusation.  Not as good about proving those accusations violate any laws, or any laws that their own party isn't also breaking.

         replyreport
6. 83

   GA Andersonposted 20 months ago

   Will the real transcript please stand up?
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Sharlee01posted 20 months agoin reply to this

      It did stand up ---   Blinken (an attorney) received a letter from Jim Jordan (an attorney) in regards to the letter he initiated one must consider the first paragraph and the last. Please review the tail end of the letter.    The accusations are clear,  and the request for documents is clear.  The committee wants to find documentation to prove Blinken was part of coming up with the scene to write the letter signed by the 52  former CIA officials. They got enough from Morell to request all of Blinken's emails and correspondence.
      
      "The Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence are conducting oversight of federal law enforcement and intelligence matters within our respective jurisdictions. We are examining the origins of the infamous public statement signed by 51 former intelligence officials that falsely discredited a New York Post story regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop as supposed Russian disinformation. As part of our oversight, we have learned that you PLAYED a role in the inception of this statement while serving as a Biden campaign advisor, and we, therefore, request your assistance with our oversight.
      
      Jordan's letter clearly laid out what the Morell interview shared, without producing the entire transcript in the letter.  He was clear with his accusations and did not mince words or fully accuse Blinken of anything.
      
      One can dance around the words and the context of the transcript, due to only a small bit of it being leaked out.   I feel the key is to read both transcripts as well as the Jordan letter in full... I have not found the full transcript.
      
      My point of laying out my puzzle in a Thread.  I think it important to see the simple progression of an oh-so-dirty campaign ploy the  Biden campaign appeared to use to deceive the public.  No matter who started the ball rolling.
      
      Will Blinken be indicted for a crime with the other cohorts -- that is to be seen --- most likely not. It would look like Morell would be the fall guy thus far.
      
      Just wanted to point out the slimy road this bunch took to the White House.  YUCK
      
      Hence, my questions --
      
      Well, I would say this is quite the puzzle is it not?
      
      Thoughts, or no biggie?
      
      Very clear some feel no biggie. Not at all surprising.

      replyreport
      1. 57

         BKLYN1975posted 20 months agoin reply to this

         Deleted
         1. 86

            Sharlee01posted 20 months agoin reply to this

            You are missing the complete transcript.  The before and after questions as to what this Dem leaked.
            
            In my view, Jordan did summarize the interview in his letter to Blinken. Are we to just ignore Jordan's accusations?  He certainly made them clear in his letter.
            
            As I said it would be helpful to see the full transcript.

            replyreport
            1. 57

               BKLYN1975posted 20 months agoin reply to this

               Deleted
               1. 86

                  Sharlee01posted 20 months agoin reply to this

                  He did not leak any of the interviews. Makes me wonder if he will this week.

                  replyreport
         2. 86

            Sharlee01posted 20 months agoin reply to this

            He actually did not accuse any one person yet of being responsible for the now notorious former CIA letter that lead people to believe the Hunter laptop was Russian misinformation.
            
            And the point, the FBI already knew that not to be true...
            https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation … s-n1243874
            October 20, 2020 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … n-campaign
            
            Yet these X CIA felt compelled to write that letter and disregard what was being reported just days before the  Trump/Biden debate.

            replyreport
7. 83

   GA Andersonposted 20 months ago

   For clarity (for all), I take the OP to be about the claim of political instigation of the 'Russian disinformation' claim, not necessarily the specific 'who' (Blinken) of the claim.
   
   The dueling transcripts seem to confirm that it was a political ploy. Morell's statements also confirm, at least part of, the reason was politically motivated—'to help Biden.' Isn't that more to the point than the specifics of the players?
   
   First, establish whether the misinformation claim and those 51 concurring experts were legitimately an intelligence claim or simply a political ploy. Then the 'who' becomes pertinent.
   
   So far, it looks like  1 - 0 for 'ploy'.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Valeantposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      1-1 if you also factor in the desire to not let a hostile foreign adversary affect the outcome of our elections like they did in 2016.  2-1 for protecting the sanctity of our elections when you factor in the source of the leak was Rudy Guiliani who had ties to known members of Russian Intelligence.
      
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORClvU_7Mg&t=371s

      replyreport
      1. 98

         DrMark1961posted 20 months agoin reply to this

         Biden tells us he is good friends with the head of Chinese intelligence, the president of China. Does that mean that "Biden has ties to known members of Chinese Intelligence"?
         
         Are you disseminating Chinese disinformation?

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Valeantposted 20 months agoin reply to this

            Did I mention China in any way?  Did China try and influence 2020 for Biden? 
            
            You seem to be missing many equivalent links here to put this in the same category.  Which seems to often be the case with the false equivalencies the far-right spews.

            replyreport
            1. 98

               DrMark1961posted 20 months agoin reply to this

               Have you forgotten your previous comment about Russian intelligence links? Are you not able to understand that one comment that claims that since a person knows someone in Russian intelligence led to a comment about a person with links to Chinese intelligence?
               
               You seem to be missing something here, or ignoring something obvious, which is a left-wing trait and the point of this thread.

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  Valeantposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                  I'm sorry, but is this a case about Chinese influence in 2020?  Did the letter accuse the Chinese of something we are not aware of?  Are there reports of Biden being targeted by Chinese Intelligence?
                  
                  You're reaching at straws to deflect from the Russia angle that is the focus here.

                  replyreport
                  1. 98

                     DrMark1961posted 20 months agoin reply to this

                     The whole point was that you accused a person of being linked to Russian intelligence because they knew someone in Russian intelligence. You can use the same logic to claim that Biden is linked to Chinese intelligence because he knows people who are linked to Chinese intelligence. If you are not able to understand the ridiculousness of that argument I have nothing more to do for you.
                     
                     If you think that it is reaching at straws why did you even bring it up?

                     replyreport
                     1. 76

                        Valeantposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                        Actually, I said Guiliani has ties, not that he 'knew someone.'  Slight difference. 
                        
                        Now, in Biden's job capacity as Vice President, would he have reason to form those links that are in the interests of the United States?  In what job capacity has Guiliani needed to be linked with members of Russian Intelligence that would be in the interests of the United States?  What federal position has Guiliani ever held?
                        
                        You argument makes sense if you leave out key parts of the information.

                        replyreport
                        1. 98

                           DrMark1961posted 20 months agoin reply to this

                           He was the US attorney for one of the districts in New York. Last time I checked that was a government office, but I have not been there in a while so maybe it has become private now.

                           replyreport
                           1. 76

                              Valeantposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                              So being a US attorney for SDNY, back in 1989, would give him a reason to have ties to Russian Intelligence?  That's your logic.  I'll stick with this being a ridiculous false equivalency to try and say Biden's links and Guiliani's links have the same justifications -  and that Guiliani's connection to the laptop automatically makes it suspect.

                              replyreport
                              1. 98

                                 DrMark1961posted 20 months agoin reply to this

                                 I have no idea who he met there or while working for Trump. That comment was because you said that he never had a job that caused him to deal with Russian inteligence. You do not know that but of course imply that you do.
                                 
                                 It is not false. You just prefer not to understand it.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 76

                                    Valeantposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                                    I think I understand it very well and the reach is to imply that acting as an attorney or mayor for a city in the United States, or as Trump's personal lawyer should give him the same connections to an Intelligence service that the Vice President of our country would have.  That is just clearly a false equivalency.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 98

                                       DrMark1961posted 20 months agoin reply to this

                                       It is not false.

                                       report
      2. 83

         GA Andersonposted 20 months agoin reply to this

         Acting on desires is a lot like acting on good intentions. Criticizing the source is simply a deflection from addressing the message.  And speaking of election sanctity regarding what appears very strongly to be a politically-driven action seems like nonsense to me.
         
         Nope, Ploy is still up; 1 - 0
         
         *Com'on, are you really trying to paint Rudy as a Russian agent? And that is a reason for the 'experts' letter? Cred has a long-handled shovel you can borrow.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Sharlee01posted 20 months agoin reply to this

            It is clear Val has ushered in wonderful diversions. Let's get back to --- well you know who.

            replyreport
         2. 76

            Valeantposted 20 months agoin reply to this

            If acting on desires is so much like acting on good intentions, not sure why you would void my two points?  Both are motivating factors.  Are you saying that you are willing to ignore the second half of Morell's testimony that went to his patriotic motivations just so you can have a scoreboard that reflects in your favor?
            
            *C'mon, are you really that uninformed about Rudy's history as a target and rube of Russia?
            https://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-war … ort-2021-4

            replyreport
            1. 83

               GA Andersonposted 20 months agoin reply to this

               Taking the last first, yep, I must be really that uninformed. Rudy lost my interest when he jumped on the election denial train. I didn't know about any 'Russian agent' stuff. Relative to this issue I don't see its relevance. Same for 'good intentions.' Whichever actor you would attribute the good intentions to it won't change the apparent fact that Mellor did orchestrate the letter and that a political motivation was part of his "good intentions."
               
               'Void' might not be the right word. I considered them and didn't see them as 'scores.' It's still 1 - 0
               
               As a caveat, I'm not making any connections other than Morell's statements being evidence of political motivation for the letter. But I will say I wouldn't be surprised if this does end with direct links to Biden's campaign.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  Valeantposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                  You don't see clear connections to Russian influence as relevant?  With a letter that claimed to have hallmarks of Russian disinformation as the reasoning?  Not sure we should let you hold that scoreboard, seems like you're only flipping points for your home team.

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     GA Andersonposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                     Are you saying Rudy is the Russian connection? How? To what? Which letter are you talking about that had Russian hallmarks? Isn't the 'misinformation' in this issue the description of the laptop's contents?
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 76

                        Valeantposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                        I'm definitely saying Rudy has connections to Russians.  A simple search will list the numerous ways, and there are numerous articles that highlight a whole lot of them, that go back decades.  Let alone Rudy was the target of Russia to disseminate their disinformation as recent as 2019 according to Trump's FBI.
                        
                        The letter claimed the laptop story had hallmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign.  Put out just before an election by someone with so many connections to Russia was doubly suspect.
                        
                        Not GA

                        replyreport
               2. 98

                  DrMark1961posted 20 months agoin reply to this

                  Once again we see the leftist trying to deflect from the real issue here by claiming Russian influence. Not real surprising, as they only want to lie long enough to muddle this issue and wait until it dies down.

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     Valeantposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                     Actually, the Russian influence was one of the issues that led the 51 former (for those who haven't ever done a lick of research on the topic) intelligence officers to write and attach their names to the letter.  Not surprising that the far-right would ignore one of the main issues though, that's standard operating procedure.

                     replyreport
      3. 86

         Sharlee01posted 20 months agoin reply to this

         You are so deflecting... Come on

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Valeantposted 20 months agoin reply to this

            And you are avoiding basic contributory facts.  Which is par for the course for the right to omit anything that goes against their cause, or leader.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               Sharlee01posted 20 months agoin reply to this

               Yes, I see your view in regard to contributing facts. However, this issue is very much complicated on its own. I mean if we wanted to reach out we need to look at the FBI branch that in the same weeks buried the Hunter Laptop story. And all the Twitter drops.
               
               This all looks like just another Dem ploy.  This CIA letter ploy looks extra slimy.
               
               Hey, just my thoughts

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  Valeantposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                  Maybe if there is proof that the Biden campaign paid for the letter and wrote it off as a business expense to a private corporation, then charges can be filed.  Otherwise, this slimy business looks just like trying to bury something damaging just before an election - something done in 2016 - just without all the illegality.

                  replyreport
   2. 86

      Sharlee01posted 20 months agoin reply to this

      "Isn't that more to the point than the specifics of the players?"
      
      yes, that is a big part. However many may have not fit the biggest piece of the puzzle The Men that signed that letter were well aware it was not true. One only needs to follow the news of the day that was going down in the days before that Trump/Biden debate
      
      https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … n-campaign
      https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 712484001/
      
      The news was covering the lie when the letter was penned. Yet Biden stood on a stage and lied to the public.  And as you see the lie is still pretty much believes by some.
      
      Is no one accountable for the lies we are being told, the manipulation of a political campaign to use pure lies?
      
      You solved the puzzle, I knew you were close, and would.
      
      So again, my question --   is this a biggie?
      
      And, Is it an ugly puzzle when finally viewed?

      replyreport
      1. 83

         GA Andersonposted 20 months agoin reply to this

         Yes, this is a biggie. It puts a big credibility question mark on most of the Democrats' 'Get Trump' efforts. For many that credibility gap was already there, but it might be a new 'view' for many. Particularly 'moderates.'
         
         The who is important. It will lead to accountability and opportunities for more transparency.
         
         At this point, Blinken's responsibility for the idea of the letter is a subjective interpretation. You can take Morell's word at face value—Blinken did not suggest the idea, or you might see a very tactful conversation between two savvy political actors that know what 'quiet parts' to not say out loud—as in plausible deniability. Or one might see Morell as 'taking one for the team' by exonerating Blinken. Or  . . .  It's all conjecture, so far. That the letter was a political ploy seems to be settled by Morell's testimony. He actually said so.
         
         Your OP title was spot on — one pulled thread can lead to an unraveling. Both sides know this.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Sharlee01posted 20 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, this is a biggie. It puts a big credibility question mark on most of the Democrats' 'Get Trump' efforts. For many that credibility gap was already there, but it might be a new 'view' for many. Particularly 'moderates.'"
            
            OH YEAH... It's a really big biggie in my view too.
            
            Hey, will see if Blinken complies with Jordan's request.
            
            " Based on the information we have obtained to date, we believe that you possess material that would advance our oversight and inform potential legislative reforms. Accordingly, we ask that you please provide the following information and records in your personal possession: 1. Identify all people with whom you communicated about the inception, drafting, editing, signing, publishing, or promotion of the “Public Statement on the Hunter Biden Emails” dated October 19, 2020, during the period October 14, 2020, to November 24, 2020; and 2. Produce all documents and communications referring or relating to the “Public Statement on the Hunter Biden Emails” dated October 19, 2020, sent or received between October 14, 2020, and November 24, 2020.
            
            Please produce this material as soon as possible but no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 4, 2023. Because these events occurred prior to your nomination and confirmation as Secretary of State, we seek your cooperation with our requests in your personal, and not your official,  capacity. Although our requests do not implicate Department equities, and accordingly there should be no basis for the Department to interfere with our oversight, we have addressed these requests to you in your official capacity initially as a courtesy. If you are represented by private counsel in this matter, please ask your attorney to contact Judiciary Committee staff promptly on your behalf at (202) 225-6906.
            Thank you for your attention to this matter.
            Sincerely,

            replyreport