Various intelligence and defense figures including former Defense Secretary Mark Esper have suggested trying to capture the Chinese surveillance balloon to analyze its equipment and any content. China admits that this may be its balloon but denies that it is used for surveillance. It says that it was lost accidentally due to weather. So the balloon may be ours but it was lost. However, the government is likely to oppose anyone collecting or using information from the balloon. That sounded vaguely familiar. Indeed, Abbe Lowell may have a new client (Indeed, a client with past dealings with his current client, Hunter Biden).
Update: After the United States shot down the balloon, China appeared to send out a Lowell-like message that “China will resolutely uphold the relevant company’s legitimate rights and interests, and at the same time reserving the right to take further actions in response.”
China notably invoked a claim of “force majeure,” or an extraordinary event that can negate contractual obligations. In this case, it is saying that the balloon was not intentionally sent into the United States but lost due to no fault of its own. Such a contractual claim indicates that it may still claim property rights to the balloon and that it was not really abandoned or lost legally.
In a letter last week, Hunter Biden’s lawyer Abbe Lowell called for an array of criminal investigations as well as threatening lawsuits against critics and media figures. It also appeared to confirm that the laptop is indeed Hunter’s. However, the next day, Lowell told NBC “These letters do not confirm Mac Isaac’s or others’ versions of a so-called laptop.” It is a curious position but one that may appeal to the Chinese government (Indeed, this may be the type of legal acumen that prompted the Chinese to give millions to Hunter and his associates).
So here is the pitch. The Chinese first issues a flurry of letters threatening anyone who takes or uses information from the balloon with theft, defamation and privacy lawsuits, the loss of tax-exempt status, and undefined “criminal investigations.” Then you issue a statement the next day saying that, even though China may sue, “these letters do not confirm the United States’ or others’ versions of a so-called spy balloon.” So if there are surveillance capabilities found on the equipment, it is not necessarily yours. You then attack both critics and the media for a “dirty political trick” in using (or “manipulating”) any information found on the property lost by the CCP.
I fully expect a finders fee from the law firm if this works out with the CCP. Not to be too forward but the 2.8 carat diamond sent to Hunter as a gift from the Chinese would do nicely.
That is assuming, of course, that my original theory is wrong and that this is not “the Rover” still searching for “Number Six.” (If so, I will have to get my rowing jacket down from the attic):