Below is my column in the New York Post on the response of Secretary of State Antony Blinken to allegations that he was the original source for the Russian disinformation claim behind the Hunter Biden laptop. I wrote previously that Blinken is struggling to avoid the look of a “made man” who earned his bones in the Biden Administration. Things are now likely to get worse after a U.S. senator added an alleged false statements charge to Blinken’s controversies.
Here is the column:
Secretary of State Antony Blinken is claiming the political version of the immaculate conception.
In a Fox interview, Blinken suggests that he is free of blame in the creation of the 2020 letter from former intelligence officials claiming that the Hunter Biden laptop story was likely Russian disinformation.
Despite the primary organizer of the letter naming him as the Biden campaign adviser who first raised the claim, Blinken insists that he remains without sin.
All of the letter signatories are taking the same position.
No one is at fault in one of the most calculated false stories ever planted in the midst of an election cycle.
That would be hard enough to believe, but it’s not even the only lie Blinken is accused of telling in relation to Hunter Biden.
Blinken is also facing questions over allegedly false statements made to Congress related to Hunter Biden.
He claims he never emailed Hunter, when messages on the president’s son’s laptop show he did.
Let’s start with the letter.
With an enabling media, Joe Biden was able to use it to dismiss the evidence of possible influence peddling and criminal conduct on the laptop.
During the presidential debate, an irate Biden cited the letter as proving that the laptop story was “garbage” and part of a “Russian plan.” He added that “nobody believes” that the laptop was real.
Media and social media companies then buried the story, including some like Twitter banning its discussion before the election.
In the close election, the false story worked to negate a damaging scandal of corruption involving millions of dollars from foreign sources, including some involving figures associated with foreign intelligence.
After the Republican takeover of the House, former acting CIA Director Michael Morell was called before Congress to give a statement.
When pressed on how this letter came about, Morell reportedly did not hesitate: Blinken.
He said Blinken was “the impetus” of the false claim.
Morell then organized dozens of ex-national security officials to sign the letter claiming that the Hunter laptop story had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
On Monday, Blinken told Fox News State Department correspondent Benjamin Hall that “with regard to that letter, I didn’t — it wasn’t my idea, didn’t ask for it, didn’t solicit it. And I think the testimony that the former deputy director of the CIA, Mike Morell, put forward confirms that.”
Morell said that it was Blinken who “triggered” his interest in crafting the letter. So perhaps Blinken is trying to dance on the semantic pinhead of being the impetus as opposed to the “solicitor” of the claim. Morell did not appear to have any doubts or hesitation after speaking with Blinken and quickly assembled an array of experts to make the false claim. Morell admitted to Congress that one of his goals was “to help then-Vice President Biden in the debate and to assist him in winning the election.”
So it turns out no one is at fault. Not the “trigger,” not the organizer, not the signatories, not the media. Indeed, maybe it is the public for being chumps in buying this scam.
Blinken is facing a more serious question raised by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who declared that Blinken told “boldface” lies when he testified under oath to Congress in 2020 on the controversy. Johnson said that Blinken said he never emailed Hunter Biden.
Yet emails between the president’s son and Blinken were recently disclosed. They suggested that the two were in communication in 2015 while Blinken was working in the Obama administration and Hunter was on the board of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma.
Johnson stated on Fox’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that “we know that he lied boldface to Congress about never emailing Hunter Biden. My guess is he told a bunch of other lies.”
There are also emails that suggest that Hunter communicated through Blinken’s wife, Evan Ryan, who now serves as Biden’s cabinet secretary.
We still need more details on the underlying facts, but, if true, the allegations could constitute both criminal and impeachable offenses. Blinken reportedly made these statements as part of the process leading to his confirmation. If he lied, it could constitute making a “materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation” to Congress under 18 US 1001.
If Blinken lied or committed perjury, it could also constitute an impeachable offense. One complicating issue is that this did not technically occur while in office but in pursuit of that office. Moreover, there may be other statements since becoming secretary of state.
Of course, during the Clinton impeachment, the question of whether perjury constitutes an impeachable offense was raised. When I testified at the impeachment hearing, I maintained that it clearly does meet the standard of a “high crime and misdemeanor.” In my view, it did not matter the subject matter.
Others, like Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe, were equally certain that perjury did not meet that standard in the Clinton case.
The fact is that cabinet and high-ranking officers have often been accused of false statements without facing impeachment or even prosecution.
Ironically, the letter includes one notable example.
Former National Intelligence Director James Clapper during the Obama administration was accused of perjury before the Senate but was not sanctioned by the Democrat-controlled Senate or the Obama Justice Department.
He later signed the Hunter Biden letter.
That history may be reassuring for Blinken.
However, whatever the outcome, Blinken has some explaining to do and one thing is clear: There is nothing immaculate about the Hunter Biden scandal.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and a professor at George Washington University Law School.
“We still need more details on the underlying facts ….”
Professor, those who need to be in the know, acknowledges Hunter Biden’s transformation from a registered lobbyist [1] to a humanitarian capacity. As Chairman of World Food Program USA, a 501(c)(3) charity then VP’s son expanded his work primarely to Eastern Europe and China.
After the opportunity arose to accompany his father, Hunter immediately asked Evan for her husband’s private email address (careless, I know) for an emergency contact. A short appointment was made, Hunter asked how he should handle FARA. Blinken was surprised because as FARA is designed on persons representing foreign interests and not for humanitarian work.Just as Hunter does not have to answer for being approached by foreign politicians, his father cannot be blamed for the fact that lobbying firms like Ricchetti Inc. picked up some clients like The Podesta Group did earlier.
Long ago, Hunter changes ships: At first, he wanted to follow in the footsteps of Annie Leibovitz; only his photographs have not been received as benevolently as he would have liked. It looks like his artwork is more in demand.
“… but, if true, the allegations could constitute both criminal and impeachable offenses.”
Seriously:
1. Who should open a criminal case?
2. Speaker doesn’t have votes for an impeachment inquiry.
3.It is much more likely that Senate’s Minority leader will put an end to this undignified spectacle!
[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=20130
It seems that the Biden Cabinet is not diverse at all. They are all lying incompetents.
wiseoldlawyer: “..is not diverse at all.”
I smile, that was clever!
As I have said until I’m blue in the face…
The Russian disinformation story concocted by the political left regarding the Hunter Biden laptop and almost everything out of the mouths of the political left regarding that laptop scandal, since the story broke before the 2020 election, is evidence to support my opinion above.
There is a pattern if people care to pay attention.
It’s really clear to me that the political left will push any narrative, even fabricated ones known to be lies, that have the potential to increase their power in the United States government and they will later try to justify their lying propaganda narratives with some kind of ends justifies the means or what difference does it make now or if it’s not illegal then it’s justifiable rationalizations. Yes, I fully believe that the political left thinks the American people are rubes and sheeple. It seems that they’re always hoping that they can cover the tracks of their lying propaganda narratives well enough to get them past the next election and increase their power, so by the time their lies have been uncovered the lies have accomplished their task of helping them gain power, and they just present more bald-faced lies, false narratives and rationalizations to get them through to the next election. It’s lies built upon lies and the problem is that the tactical pattern is working to pull the wool over the eyes of the political left’s sheeple voters and those moderated and independents that are gullible enough to swallow their propaganda.
I’m paying close attention to their tactical patterns.
Based on history over just the last nine years, inclusive, I firmly believe that I am completely justified in not believing any of the political left’s narratives, no matter what the topic is, until absolutely every word of their narrative is confirmed with actual fact based evidence. I’m fully aware that a stopped clock is correct twice a day and I don’t let that fact skew my lack of belief in the lefts narratives.
The political left’s false narrative tentacles are interfering with our lives at every turn.
The political left has metaphorically made their bed.
“some like Twitter banning its discussion before the election”
Twitter banned it for all of 24 hours and stopped well before the election. Many people tweeted about it on Twitter before the election.
“So perhaps Blinken is trying to dance on the semantic pinhead of being the “impetus” as opposed to the “solicitor” of the claim.”
Morell’s testimony under oath:
Q: When he called you, did he direct, suggest, or insinuate in any way that you should write a letter or statement on this topic?
A: My memory is that he did not, right. My memory is that he asked me what I thought.
Q: Okay. It wasn’t: The campaign could use some help on this; could you —
A: He did not say that.
Q: — cook up something that we could use?
There is no evidence so far that Blinken solicited it, and that’s not “dancing on a semantic pinhead.” It’s Morell’s clear testimony.
“Twitter banned it for all of 24 hours “
You don’t know what you are talking about. Twitter banned it and the NYPost in many ways including shadow banning. All you are doing is destroying the reputation of all anonymous writers and that includes your own.
Anonymous, I can’t seem to find the full transcript of the Morell testimony. Do you have a link I could use to read it?
Ah, selective facts. They hurt us all. Here is the part of the testimony you left out:
“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?”
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2023-04-20-jdj-mt-to-blinken-re-public-statement-on-hunter-biden-emails_0.pdf
Lin, that means it was Morell’s idea not Blinken’s. Its’ clear the senator questioning him was leading trying to put words into Morell’s mouth.
“A: My memory is that he did not, right. My memory is that he asked me what I thought.
Q: Okay. It wasn’t: The campaign could use some help on this; could you —
A: He did not say that.
Q: — cook up something that we could use?”
Morell made it clear that what the senator was trying to imply was not what Blinken was doing despite what they are claiming he said.
It’s interesting that the link you used only shows a partial transcript of the interaction and not the full set of questions and answers. Which is the point of Jim Jordan’s intent. To create a false narrative using cherry-picked snippets of what was said.
It looks like Morell came up with the idea after the call, not because Blinken suggested it or told him to come up with it. So Blinken is technically still telling the truth and Turley is exploiting the muddled claims being made by Republicans into telling a different narrative. It’s not surprising.
Svelaz:
It’s interesting that you, as a non-litigator let alone a non-lawyer, do not appreciate that you cannot conflate (another of your learned words) “He did not say that” with the subsequently-articulated “cook up something that we could use.”
Looks to me like Morell responded to a question of whether Blinken expressly said, “The campaign could use some help on this; could you…” by responding, “He did not say that.”
Svelaz, since everything you say here is mere opinion, please tell us what your opinion is as to why Biden campaign adviser Blinken contacted Morell about the Hunter matter? Remember, neither you nor I know, but just tell me your opinion.
MY own opinion is that Blinken, Biden’s campaign adviser (hoping to be rewarded, as he was, with a later political appointment], contacted Morell with the express motive of “triggering” an “intent” in Morell
[to come up with something like the letter]. THOSE are the actual words found in the testimony.
Thanks in advance.
@lin; The art of the deal in these matters is to see how much ice one can shave into the glass without being charged with having made it too cold,
Lin, you’re still making as assumption absent pertinent facts. You’re trying to guess what his intent was without knowing the full context of the testimony. I’m not conflating anything, you are. That’s where your confusion lies.
Anonymous – you claim that Twitter banned the story for only 24 hours. Yet, the NYP claims that its account with Twitter was shut down for two weeks:
“At a congressional hearing on misinformation and social media, Dorsey said Twitter made a “total mistake” by barring users from sharing The Post’s bombshell October report about Hunter Biden’s emails.
Twitter also locked The Post out of its account for more than two weeks over baseless charges that the exposé used hacked information — a decision Dorsey chalked up to a “process error.”
https://nypost.com/2021/03/25/dorsey-says-blocking-posts-hunter-biden-story-was-total-mistake/
They allowed others to circulate it on Twitter after 24 hours.
IIRR, the NY Post’s account was blocked for longer because it refused to take down some images, but plenty of people were tweeting links to the NY Post’s article.
“Blinken is facing a more serious question raised by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who declared that Blinken told “boldface” lies when he testified under oath to Congress in 2020 on the controversy. Johnson said that Blinken said he never emailed Hunter Biden.
Yet emails between the president’s son and Blinken were recently disclosed. They suggested that the two were in communication in 2015 while Blinken was working in the Obama administration and Hunter was on the board of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma.”
Turley is sure pushing a lot of BS regarding this tired and worn out Hunter Biden “scandal” and it’s peripheral issues.
The hyperlink he used to cite the email issue does NOT talk about the email at all. That Blinken may have sent some emails in 2015 when the they asked about RECENT events in 2020 are not even remotely related. It’s like asking have you sent this person emails during the 2020 campaign? “No”. Aha! You lied! You sent some emails back in 2015!…”liar”! Come on, Turley must think his readers are really that stupid.
All the claims about what Morell said are all hearsay. You didn’t notice that? The republicans claiming what Michael Morell said are not quoting his entire answers. They are cherry-picking his words and using them out of context to imply he is saying the things they say he said without the benefit of seeing the actual transcript of what he said. It’s a very convenient way to build a false narrative without the context of the actual testimony and how they phrased their questions. Remember, they questioned him behind closed doors in private. We already know republicans have a big agenda against the Bidens and it should be no surprise that they are indeed making stuff up to push a narrative that is mostly not true, The problem Turley has is that even HE can’t verify what was really said in that hearing behind closed doors, so he is forced to assume a lot of things and portray them as the truth for his gullible readers. That is the nature of Turley’s disingenuousness.
Morell’s testimony.
Jordan: But, prior to [Secretary Blinken’s] call, you – you did not have any intent to write this statement?
Morell: I did not.
Jordan: Okay. So his call triggered –
Morell: It did, yes.
Jordan: – that intent in you?
Morell: Yes. Absolutely.
Jordan: What was the intent of the statement?
Morell: 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.
Jordan: You wanted to help the Vice President why?
Morell: Because I wanted him to win the election.
Jordan: You wanted him to win; that’s why?
Morell: Yes, sir.
I would note that – though the testimony is damning – what is more important is what HAPPENED.
Blinken at that time part of the Biden campaign, contacted Acting CIA director Morell, who then drafted the letter, sought out former IC people to sign on, and arranged to have the letter made public.
The precise words that Blinken used to Morrel or that Morell testified to are important, but the ACTS are the huge problem.
Blinken sought to have the CIA interfere in an election.
And the CIA did.
We do not know precisely what Blinken said or What Morell said,
But we now KNOW what they DID. And that is a crime. It is a violation of the Hatch Act.
It is also MORE evidence of various government agencies conspiring to rig the election.
Which is also illegal.
It is a form of election Fraud.
We will never know if DVS participated in rigging the election.
But we KNOW beyond any doubt that the 2020 election was illegally rigged in many ways but democrats.
How could it be a Hatch Act violation when the 51 signers were former intelligence officials and Blinken was a campaign manager?
All a hatch act violation requires is a SINGLE participant of any kind to be within the government.
If Morell so much as called up a CIA secretary for a list of former CIA staff – there is a hatch act violation AND a conspiracy to commit a crime.
So that you are clear – I have corrected the inaccuracy that Morell was in the CAI at the time.
It is necessary to involve current government staff and/or resources to violate the hatch act.
That does not alter the FACT that these people were all lying, and seeking to rig the election.
And Morell is remarkable open about it.
It does not alter the FACT that their possibly legal conduct outside of govenrment disqualifies them from government service.
I will repeat to you what I said to Upstate – we can not punish acts that are not illegal with FORCE – government, jail.
But we can punish acts that are immoral – just not with Government.
I would further note YOU have just provided the best reason that Morell was speaking the truth.
Had Morell answered in any way other than as he did – he would have committed perjury.
By speaking truthfully – he avoided illegality, though not immorality.
I would note that – though the testimony is damning – what is more important is what HAPPENED.“
There’s nothing “damning” about the testimony. That’s the problem. Even what happened says nothing about what they actually said on that call. It’s all inferred based on the leading questions posed by Jordan. It’s an implied narrative that pushes a false context.
“Blinken sought to have the CIA interfere in an election.
And the CIA did.
We do not know precisely what Blinken said or What Morell said,”
Again, purely an assumption on your part. Even while admitting nobody knows precisely what Blinken or Morell said. You state “Blinken sought to have the CIA interfere in an election without any proof whatsoever. You don’t know and neither do I or anyone else. Which brings us all back to square one. It’s still all an assumption and implied intents without any concrete evidence of the allegations.
Poll today has 60% of americans saying that Blinken should be impeached – most people disagree with your claim that Blinken did nothing wrong.
Some of us actually know what right and wrong are.
Your clearly not one of those.
“There’s nothing “damning” about the testimony.”
Of course there is Morell testified that Blinken asked him to violate the law by interfering in a US election as Acting CIA director.
Morell’s actions are criminal, and Blinken initiated a criminal conspiracy.
“That’s the problem.”
No problem, just a crime.
“Even what happened says nothing about what they actually said on that call.”
Correct. Morell did not testify to Blinken’s exact words.
Do you think that it is nececasry to have a recording of a phone call, when when of the co-conspirators testifies under oath to the request he received ?
People are convicted on far less all the time.
“It’s all inferred based on the leading questions posed by Jordan.”
Nope Morell testified to what Blinken asked him to do, and testified to what he then did.
“It’s an implied narrative that pushes a false context.”
Not implied – stated, not a narative, but the facts, what is a “false context” ?
Regardless, We KNOW the Facts. We Know What Morell did – he has admitted to it.
Worse – YOU love to know WHY people do something – Morell testified to WHY.
He wanted to assure that Biden would win the election.
He engaged in illegal election interferance.
He KNEW what he was doing.
And he testified that Blinken Directed him to do so.
You seem to be saying this is a “dalse narative – Please construct an alternative narative that conforms to known facts, that is not damning.
We KNOW the letter was written. We KNOW it was false. We KNOW the HB laptop is real – and frankly the FBI and CIA also KNEW it was not russian disinformation. Validating it is not all that hard.
We now have Acting CIA director Morell testifying under oath that He Wrote the letter and got others to sign it and provided it to the media.
Morell was not going to lie about that – people have already gone to the press with some of this.
Regardless, there are 51+ people who can be called to testify – Morell was not going to perjure himself in a situation where he KNEW he would be caught.
It is also likely that he told others about the Blinken Phone call – so AGAIN he was unlikely to risk lying. Further there are likely records of the call.
There is only one thing that Morell said that he could have avoided saying if he wanted – and that was admitting that the purpose was to get Biden elected.
“Again, purely an assumption on your part.”
The only assumption I am making is that Morell is not perjuring himself.
Juries are instructed that when a person testifies under oath in a way that is damaging to themselves, that has an incredibly high probability of being true.
“Even while admitting nobody knows precisely what Blinken or Morell said.”
Correct. We do not need to know PRECISELY what was said. We know what Morell Testified was said.
That is sufficient. Regardless – it is near certain Blinken will be called to testify.
And if Blinken denies it under oath – phone records will be examined, and other witnesses will be called, with regard to what Morell told tham Blinken said.
This happens all the time.
“You state “Blinken sought to have the CIA interfere in an election without any proof whatsoever.”
Of course I have proof – Morell’s testimony. Are you saying Morell lied under Oath ?
“You don’t know and neither do I or anyone else.”
This is a very bizarre standard.
So you are saying that if two people plan a bank robbery over the phone – that without a recording of the call,
one of those two people can not testify about the phone call ?
Do we have to have both the sender and recipient of Hunter Biden emails BOTH testify to accept them ?
It is not like Morell is some GOP operative. He testified that he chose to help Biden defeat Trump, and that he did so in his official capactiy as acting CIA driector.
“Which brings us all back to square one. ”
Nope.
“It’s still all an assumption and implied intents without any concrete evidence of the allegations.”
No assumptions. AGAIN mind reading why criminals did something is NOT necescary, All that is required is a criminal act.
We have that. HOWEVER in this case Morell Testified that he did this to help Biden win the election.
He could be lying – under oath, but the odds are miniscule. And if you think so – democrats should subpeona everyone Morell talked to and ask them if he mentioned Blinken.
My Guess is that Morell was incredibly forthright – because he KNEW that there was plenty of evidence – that his actions can not be hidden, that the call from Blinken has a record. It is even possible as Acting CIA director it was recorded. That he told those he solicited what he testified to – and therefore he knew that if he lied he would get caught.
My Guess is that Morell is smart enough to know that his legal risk for lying is far greater than telling the truth here.
It is unlikely DOJ will prosecute him, But even if there was a prosecution it would go far worse had he lied about it.
Your off in lala land. It is extremely rare that we get evidence better than this.
Svelaz,
no one beleives that DOJ is actually going to go after Blinken for Perjury.
But that is exactly what he did. You went after Cohen for minor mistatements to the house.
You went after Stone for mistatements that involved exculpatory information.
You went after Papadoulis for small errors in dates of emails in the midst of 80hrs of questioning by the FBI.
The primary vehcle that was used to frame Trump people during the collusion delusion was immaterial lies to the FBI or misstatements to congress.
As to Blinken – The evidence is that the communications was ongoing through 2020. That he backchanneled HB through his wife.
As to your “Recent” claim – the Transcript of Blinken’s testimony has not been released. So how is it you know what was said ?
But Johnson has committed to getting it released – though that requires the cooperation of a democratic Senate.
Are you prepared to demand it is made public ?
Further – people testify in private all the time. That is not unusual. It is generally less of a circus when they do. Frequently testimony is gather in private and SOMETIMES later, the same person testifies more briefly in public – again that is the norm, The Democrat faux J6 committee did that all the time.
Do you think lying under oath in a non-public setting is NOT a crime ?
Further this testimony was in Dec. 2020 before Johnson’s Senate committee investigating Hunter Biden. They were not after “recent communications”
They were not even aware that Blinken had a role int he CIA letter at that time. THAT is what has RECENTLY been disclosed.
Get your timelines correct, and your investigations sorted
They were after everything from 2014 forward. They were specifically looking into Burisma, and other HB dealings
They questioned Blinken because he was Deputy SoS at the time, and because many in the State Department – including Nuland were raising the Alarm about HB’s conduct. What we are NOW Learning is that Blinken was providing Cover for Hunter and the Biden’s even then.
Yes, we need to know exactly what Blinken was asked to know whether any perjury was consequential.
But you are engaged in wishful thinking if you beleive that in 2020 while Investigating HB, and questioning Blinken specific to the HB engagement with the State Department that Johnson was asking Blinken about communications in 2020, not 2015.
Next, this gets worse – not just for Blinken but for the Bidens.
The SAR’s indicate that The Bidens and their crew – atleast partly including Blicken continued their corrupt business deals WHILE The FBI was investigating them.
Treasury has under accute pressure provided comer with Millions in payments through 2020 atleast.
We also KNOW that HB was RECENTLY involved in selling oil from the SPR to China.
That alone will prove highly problematic for Biden. Why exactly was the US SPR – which is supposed to be used for NATIONAL emergencies used to provide Oil to China ? Biden’s release of the SPR was purportedly to lower US gas prices. Which is not a legitimate purpose. But one he could get away with politically.
MAYBE Biden could get away with sending SPR oil to Europe in the midst of the Ukraine war – though that is not inside of the SPR’s legitimate purposes.
But Sending US Oil to China in deals that made Hunter Millions in the midst of high gas prices in the US looks REALLY Corrupt.
Yet the Biden’s were Brazen about this.
The Emails were NOT recently disclosed – they werte found on the HB laptop, as was the Back Channel through Blinken’s wife. The HB laptop has been available for almost 3 years.
Yes, Republicans are “out to get Biden” just as Democrats are “out to get Trump”. When law enforcement – the executive branch is involved in the investigation of the private actions of an individual – the constitution sets criteria that MUST be met.
When Congress, the Press, etc are investigating the government conduct of public officials – there are no constitutional protections and there need not be any.
The government conduct of those in the government is in its entirety subject to government oversight. Blinken using his wife to Back Channel HB is itself misconduct. It is an effort to hide government conduct from public oversight.
The mere act of Back-channeling may be a crime, it near certainly is illegal, and it definitely is immoral and unethical.
Blinken was conducting himself as Deputy SoS through his wife’s email to HB.
The more recent revalations that Blinken also orchestrated the Hoax Letter, is an independent example of misconduct.
Though each misconduct amplifies the other.
John Say – They also went after General Flynn for supposedly misstating the substance of a conversation with a Russian diplomat. Flynn knew that they had a recording of the conversation, and he told them to listen to it. So, they could not possibly have been misled. Further, by directing them to the recording, he effectively adopted his remarks on the recording as his answer to the FBI. Flynn was one of the first of the FBI’s innocent victims in its quest to destroy Trump.
The Flynn case was absolutely damning.
Barr dropped the case – though Sullivan refused to let it drop, when he discovered that the foundation for the investigation had disappeared several weeks earlier,
In other words the FBI had no legitimate basis to interview Flynn at the time they did.
That is relevant for two reasons – first because continuing the election was unconstitutional.
And 2nd because 18 USC 1001 is NOT a broad prosecription against lying to the government.
There was a serious problem with its application from the start – because the FBI hid from Flynn that he was being interviewed as part of an investigation.
18 USC 1001 is not about lying to the FBI.
It is about lying to the government, WHEN the government is legitimatelyu investigating.
18 USC applies to EPA investigators as well as FBI agents.
But it does NOT apply to every exchange with a government agent.
Flynn himself was a “government agent” the FBI lied to secure the interview. The Legal Theory Sullivian was trying to rely on would have made the FBI Agents also guilty of violating 18 USC 1001.
The FACT that the investigation had effectively died 2 weeks before meant the Flynn interveiw was not a legitimate investigative interview.
Which means Flynn could have lied through his teeth.
There were other issues that were also important – mateirality which should have tanked this long before.
The Whole Flynn investigation was a revalation of the coruption of the FBI.
Alsomissed by most regarding the DOJ withfrawl from the Flynn case is that it also constituted a quiet admission that the appointment of the Special Counsel was unconstitutional.
Again – the foundation for the entire Trump Russia investigation ended when the FBI interviewed Danchenko and he said the Steele Dossier was all made up.
This occured in early Jan 2017.
But the Durham investigation is actually MORE damning. Durham lost the Danchenko and Sussman cases because the FBI KNEW at the time they first received the Steele Dossier – I believe that was in August of 2016, that they were Frauds.
That means from the moment that the FBI grasped there was nothing to the Papadoulis nonsense, the investigation was without foundation and therefore OVER – illegal and unconstitutional.
Further we KNOW that Strzok and probably Comey FULLY understood this by late 2016 because of Strzoks texts, and Rices email notes regarding the J6 meeting with Obama, Comey etc on the Trump investigation.
There can be little doubt Rosenstein knew or should have known when he appointed Mueller – and if not learned soon after.
There can be no doubt that Mueller knew shortly after being appointed.
Being appointed SC does NOT change the Constitutional requirements for a lawful investigtation.
And what we now know from Durham is that the Collusion Delusion investigation fell outside those requirements in Aug 2016 and NEVER recovered.
Most american did not know that – but the FBI, DOJ, Obama, Comey, Biden, Rice, and later SC Mueller KNEW that.
You fixate on whether Blinken technically lied to congress, and miss the point that the communications themselves are unethical, immoral, and likely illegal.
John Say,
When one is unethical and immoral in the first place, then who cares about the question of legality?
It puts on full display to the world the character of a person.
I care a great deal about the difference between unethical immoral and illegal.
And it is of great importance to many of the issues we discuss.
The recently revealed conduct of Supreme court justices – Sotomayor is now int he list of those receiving millions.
and ruled on cases involving the donors.
Is a valid ethical issue. It is evident that Supreme court Justices are engaged in spliting ethical fine hairs.
I would greatly prefer their conduct to be different.
And I beleive it is legitimate to demand that if you accept a position as supreme court justice, or judge, or president, or congress critter, that you accept a number of constraints on your finances.
But aside from an honor system – these constraints must be imposed by the constitution – Congress canmake ethics rules for Congress, not the president or Supreme court.
While the above is critical of the conduct of ALL supreme court justices. There is a difference between Justices splitting eithical fine hairs and obviously unethical conduct.
The money the Biden’s received – whether legal or not is corrupt PERIOD. That is not a close call. It is not comparable to the conduct of Supreme court justices,
It is not even comparable to Sen Menendez.
Congress can impeach for unethical conduct. They can impeach Thomas, or Sotomayor, or … if they wish, they can impeach Biden
The Trump impeachments dropped the impeachment bar REALLY low.
The can impeach Blinken, or Garland, or Mayorkas.
They can impeach just because they do not like the job they are doing.
Any meaning to “high crimes and misdemeanors” is gone.
I would not support impeaching Justices. And that is really all congress can do.
But I would not have any difficultly impeaching several members of the Biden admin – including Biden himself.
Biden’s indisputable conduct is far worse than anything Trump has done.
And impeachment no longer requires a crime.
I do not vote for people I have moral and ethical questions about.
I did not vote for Trump, nor Clinton. nor Biden.
if someone put a gun to my head, with only a binary choice – I would vote for Trump.
But I do not have a gun to my head.
Very little of what is immoral or unethical is or should be illegal.
There are several obvious small crimes Hunter has committed.
There may be larger ones, there may be actual crimes regarding Joe – but so far those are allegations.
I suspect they are true. But unlike Hunter they are not proven – which si why they must be investigated.
There were lots of allegations against Trump. These all proved unsurprisingly false.
The distinction between legal and moral is very important.
It is just not important regarding whether you vote for Biden – corruption is enough.
Incompetence is enough, failure is enough.
But it does matter regarding who we put in orange jump suits. .
We can not use FORCE against people who act unethically and immorally BUT legally.
We CAN use force against those who act illegally.
No act can be illegal without also being immoral. But all immoral acts can not be illegal.
You remedy the immoral conduct of public officials at the ballot box – or by impeachment, or recall.
You remedy the illegal acts by jail.
Many here on the right wish to Lock them up, or put them against a wall and shoot them – for acts that are immoral but not illegal.
I completely understand the sentiment.
But it is what the left does all the time. Worse still they have an unanchored concept of morality – so that anything can be immoral just because they feel that way for a moment.
The right should not commit the same sins as the left.
GiGi is worried that with power the right will seek vengance.
I both hope and expect so. But I also expect that vengence to stay within the law.
The moral violations of the left can be punished – but not by force and not by government.
The legal violations of the left can be punished by force.
Svelaz: “All the claims about what Morell said are all hearsay. You didn’t notice that? The republicans claiming what Michael Morell said are not quoting his entire answers. They are cherry-picking his words and using them out of context to imply he is saying the things they say he said without the benefit of seeing the actual transcript of what he said.”
“hearsay?”
(sorry, from lin.)
From start to finish you try to hide the fraud.
Whether Blinken initiated this is only relevant to WHO is culpable.
It does not change WHAT occured
NO MATTER WHAT, we KNOW that the letter was written to Help Biden. That it was produced by Acting CIA Driector Morell – by a ranking member of the executive branch. That is was NOT the result of any kind of actual analysis by the CIA. That there was in fact no reason to believe it was “Russian Disinformation”
That unlike similar letters from the past – this was orchestrated by the CIA, Written by the CIA, and those who signed it had NO INPUT – aside from signing or not.
We NOW know it is a lie.
But more importantly we also KNOW that it was a lie at the time. That though the letter was essentially a CIA product, it was NOT the result of CIA analysis,
That it was written in a few days for the purpose of helping the Biden campaign – NOT warning about actual Russian interference.
And finally it is just one more example of those of you on the left being willing to believe the most absurd claims – so long as they are politically beneficial and you can get some authority figures to lend their imprimatur to the idiocy you wish to believe.
Here is the relevant section of the 2020 debate.
The exchange was damning at the time. It is much worse now.
Not only did Biden lie. But the LIE was preplanned, and as Trump beautifully notes – once again Democrats are going “Russia, Russia, Russia”
Democrats and Biden are “the little boy who cried wolf”.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/13/hunter-biden-laptop-claims-russian-disinfo/
This also about election fraud.
The letter was a deliberate preplanned HOAX.
It was a deliberate effort to hide the truth. To mislead voters, to rig the election.
It is one of many examples of that kind of election fraud in 2020.
And those are all reasons to beleive that you democrats and the left engaged in other forms of election fraud.
Why shouldn’t we beleive that when the CIA, DOJ, FBI, DHS and other parts of the federal government engaged in election fraud,
That when the government provided private grants to non-profits to engage in election fraud,
That when democrats ignored elections laws to commit election fraud.
Why shouldn’t we beleive that DVS actually did what there CEO said and made sure that Biden won ?
When you are caught in multiple lies – there is no reason to beleive you about anything.
Turley sure loves to spin a good yarn when it comes to Hunter Biden tabloid stories. He makes a lot of assumptions based on what is “reportedly” said and couches his claims with a lot of “alleged” and “allegedly” said things. Meaning it is not certain that what he implies is actually the truth. He’s assuming it’s the truth based on things he cannot positively verify. For example he states that Michael Morell ‘reportely’ said it was Blinken’s idea. But nobody knows what was actually said at his testimony because it was a private testimony behind closed doors. The Judiciary committee cannot be trusted with what they claim due to the fact that it’s chaired by Jim Jordan, a known liar and Trump supporter. If they really wanted to show definitive proof they would have released the transcript of what was actually said in the hearing.
Turley relies heavily on one word to assert that what he is implying is true, “impetus”. The definition of “impetus”; is a driving force : impulse. That does not mean Blinken literally told him to do what Turley claims. He’s dancing around the wording that is alleged to be said to give it some form of credibility and thus imply it was somehow malicious in it’s intent.
“After the Republican takeover of the House, former acting CIA Director Michael Morrell was called before Congress to give a statement.
When pressed on how this letter came about, Morrell reportedly did not hesitate: Blinken.
He said Blinken was “the impetus” of the false claim.”
We all know how republican senators love to ask questions that force the person being questioned little choice but to say only yes or no. We don’t know the context in which Morell gave this answers. Turley doesn’t know, and he’s already assuming a lot without the benefit of the actual testimony. He knows that the majority of his readers will not be able to discern or notice the distinction because they are what he depends on, gullible idiots who cannot fully comprehend what they read most of the time. They don’t do complicated, they do simple, because complicated is too hard and too munch to take in and simple is easier to denigrate and rage to.
Svelaz: Nice try! 🙂
Your guy invented the argument you just tried to float here: “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” [Ref: Grand jury testimony (August 17, 1998) by POTUS Bill Clinton, answering questions about his attorney’s description of an affidavit by Monica Lewinsky.]
My “guy”, which “guy is that? Bill Clinton? I never voted for the “guy”.
Svelaz–
Michael Morrell said of Blinken:
He said Blinken was “the impetus” of the false claim.”
Blinken is “the impetus” [Thrust] but Hillary Clinton is the divisive Creator of the thrust of the Claim.
She gave Birth to It [The Immaculate Conception – Mother Mary]. Blinken along with all the Others are now the Fall Guy(s).
They were all working for the Queen Bee.
It goes all the way to the top -Russia Gate-
So now Blinken et. al. are all saying: This ain’t My Baby! (The The Immaculate Conceived).
Sounds like Hunter Biden’s claim as well.
Top of the food chain,
“Michael Morrell said of Blinken:
He said Blinken was “the impetus” of the false claim.”
He said a lot things that are not in being shown in full context. Which is hearsay. One poster actually provided a snippet of the full answer and it’s not what Turley “suggests” is he said.
“Morell’s testimony under oath:
Q: When he called you, did he direct, suggest, or insinuate in any way that you should write a letter or statement on this topic?
A: My memory is that he did not, right. My memory is that he asked me what I thought.
Q: Okay. It wasn’t: The campaign could use some help on this; could you —
A: He did not say that.
Q: — cook up something that we could use?”
There’s reason why republicans and Turley don’t cite the full answer. Because it’s harder to manipulate into the false narrative they are trying to convey.
It is crystal clear that Blinken’s call to Morrell led to the letter. Note that this was AFTER Ratcliffe, as DNI, had stated publicly there was NO EVIDENCE within the intelligence community that this was a Russian plant. We will never know precisely who said what on the call, but before it there was no concept of a letter and after it there was.
It is also crystal clear that Blinken falsely stated to Congress that he had no email correspondence with Hunter Biden.
The Republicans should stop talking and start impeachment proceedings.
They should do the same for Mayorkas, who has systematically disregarded his duty to enforce the law. He has also falsely stated to Congress time after time that the border is secure and under operational control.
What an impetuous impetus he was. Someone please print the baldfaced lies in boldface type. “I did not have email relations with that person, Hunter Biden.” He was “easy on the eyes”, as he told his (ex-)wife.
It is unfortunate that Jonathan Turley who gets most things right today managed to jam his shoed foot in his mouth by suggesting a similarity between Blinken and the person believed by billions of people around the world to have been the mother of Jesus Christ whose “conception” was “immaculate.” I think a more appropriate religious metaphor would have been to Satan in the Garden of Eden telling Eve that she would become like God if she ate the forbidden fruit. Blinken tricked Morell and 50 others in the same way, getting them to believe that if they signed a letter they knew to be false, they would become like God, that is, the candidate Biden. They fell for it and now must pay the price and be banished from the Garden forever.
Tony Blinken came through clutch for Team Biden and the Presidential debates in 2020. He orchestrated the mother of all scams and for doing that, he received the plum Secretary of State appointment and his wife Evan Ryan a Cabinet Secretary position in the White House. No one knows this more intimately than Attorney General Merrick Garland. Garland will make sure there is no prosecution of little Tony using the DOJ Hillary Clinton standard that there was “no intent” to violate 18 USC 1001. It was just an honest misunderstanding folks. It could happen to anyone who’s a Democrat. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
Biden, Blinken, Austin are charged with the safety, defense and foreign policy of the United States
In other words we are in the hands of Wynken, Blynken and Nod and the wooden shoe they are floating around on as they fall asleep at the helm.
what is clear is the FBI, DOJ, CIA, IRS, etc are 100% corrupt for Democrats
Why did Epstein meet with the CIA?
We need to REMOVE THE POWER from DC And shrink government!
-Cut 50% of Fed gov
-Move 75% of DC to Heartland
-Remove entire leadership of DOJ, IRS and FBI
-5% tax Gross wall street trans & money goes offshore
-Tax all non-profits anyone gets $100k: colleges, hospitals, etc
-Ban fed aid/loans cities, states & college, make them fund themselves
-Jail Russian Hoax, COVID liars & Biden protectors, etc
-Ban public unions $ politics, only voters can fund politics
-Remove tax credits renewables, affordable housing, etc
-voting 1 day, in person, with ID, I don’t care if you vote, I care if you cheat
– 12 year limit on federal office….judge, president, senate, congress
Why did Epstein meet with the CIA?
Probably for bagels and treason
the normal stuff
The media no longer covers or protects the Bidens they have become part of the problem
@Duca,
Oh I beg to differ.
The MSM provides scant coverage.
The rags took over 2 years to admit the laptop was real.
They are less likely to protect Biden as his disease progresses and they are looking for a new candidate.
Here you have a good example of how Blinkens protected Biden and got a payoff.
Every one of those former spooks should lose security clearance, along w pensions if not charged for election interference.
Wray should also face termination, loss of pension and law license over the FBI’s involvement.
(But that’s a different issue.)
Thanks to Cable, and the internet, the people who control the news have too much power.
The protections over FB, Google and others should be removed since they clearly have edited the material on their platforms.
-G
Please amend this article to include key corroboration:
The committee has an email to Blinken after the Biden – Trump debate thanking him for the the letter saying ~’Hey it worked!’
Busted!
No one of consequence is ever held accountable. The Republic is dead it just doesn’t realize it.
Please amend this article to include a key corroborating fact –
The Hunter Biden laptop includes an email after the Biden-Trump debate thanking Blinken for the ‘Russian Disinformation’ letter saying ‘Hey it worked!’.
Key point.
If there are Blinken-to-Hunter emails on the laptiop, that only proves that the Russians (or Donald Trump) hacked into the laptop and planted those emails.
LOL you left of the /SARC
As long as progressive clowns can get 36 week abortions and sterilize children either through surgery or puberty blockers – this does not matter.
As long as Blinken has a cowbell, he has no reason to fear the reaper
🎶 [Verse 1: Buck Dharma]
All our times have come
Here, but now they’re gone
Seasons don’t fear the Reaper
Nor do the wind, the sun, or the rain
[Chorus: Buck Dharma]
(We can be like they are) Come on, baby
(Don’t fear the Reaper) Baby, take my hand
(Don’t fear the Reaper) We’ll be able to fly
(Don’t fear the Reaper) Baby, I’m your man
La, la, la, la, la
La, la, la, la, la 🎶
Turley, “the fact is that Cabinet and high ranking have often been accused of false statements without facing impeachment or even prosecution” omits by implication one fact, DEMOCRATS don’t face prosecution when lying to Congress. See Clapper, Comey, McCabe and now Blinken. Republicans will be hounded by Garland and Democrat a led DOJ until put in prison.
This, as well as all Hunter and Joe Biden deals, is why we need a Special Prosecutor, but the flaw in the ointment is that you need an honest broker in order to get to a Special Prosecutor.
special prosecutor…THAT IS A JOKE
How is that Dunham probe for the Russian Hoax going? Democrats impeached Trump twice and ran the Russian Hoax Conspiracy in 1/2 the time of this PROBE
Garland is a TREASONOUS Traitor! Just like Blinken, the Bidens, Hillary, Obama, etc But the FBI, DOJ, etc are 100% corrupt for Democrats…and NOTHING WILL HAPPEN!
Don’t blame Garland for Durham’s incompetence. Durham was appointed touts position by Barr. Not garland. He’s had 5 years to figure this out and still has not produce anything of substance or value. Because there never was anything of substance or value in the investigation. That’s the problem.
If ‘The Russian Disinformation Campaign’ is “immaculate conception” Then it is confirmed that Hillary Clinton is Mother Mary !