Blinken’s Immaculate Conception Defense: Why Things Are Likely to Get Worse for the Secretary of State

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.

247 thoughts on “Blinken’s Immaculate Conception Defense: Why Things Are Likely to Get Worse for the Secretary of State”

  1. “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

    – William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987

  2. Reading about crooked Dems on the verge of “justice,” since Trey Gowdy BSing about how O’Bama was in big trouble… soon as “Fast ‘n Furious” was investigated……followed by….Solyndra….VA scandal….IRS scandal…..Libya scandal…..

    1. Obama was and is intrinsically in “big trouble” due to the fact that Obama will never be a “natural born citizen” and Obama will never be eligible for the presidency. The American Founders and Framers used the Law of Nations, 1858, the reference and legal text of the era, at the Constitutional Convention, 1787, as its primary reference for the definition of its presidential requirement that a candidate must be a “natural born citizen.” Every president before Obama had two parents who were citizens. Washington and Jay corresponded about the need to preclude candidates with foreign allegiances from the position of the Commander-in-chief. Obama’s father was a treasonous, anti-colonialist, anti-American, anti-Western, foreign citizen and radical extremist who was jailed by the British for 2 years and whose allegiances were foreign.

      “The Times of London, relying on statements by Obama’s third wife, Sarah Onyango Obama, 87, reported that in 1949, after becoming more politically active, Obama was jailed by the British for two years for suspicion of supplying military information to the Kenyan independence movement, owing to ‘His job as a cook to a British army officer.'[15][16] According to Sarah, Obama was subjected to beatings and abuse that left him with physical scars and a loathing of the British.”[15]

      – Wiki

      Law of Nations, 1858

      Book 1, Chpt. 19

      § 212. Citizens and natives.

      The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

  3. Jonathan: This is your second column on Antony Blinken–that pretty much makes the same unproven claims about Blinken’s alleged role in the letter written by Morrel and 50 other former intelligence officials. I have already addressed the issue in a comment (4/24 @ 4:43) so I won’t repeat myself. I think your latest attack on Blinken is just another attempt to divert attention from the continuing ethics scandal involving conservative SC justices. So permit me to address other cases in which those Justices have, like Clarence Thomas, accepted lavish gifts by those who want to influence the Court.

    The Insider is reporting (5/1/23) “SCOTUS justices went on cushy teaching trips to Italy, Iceland, and the UK funded by a conservative law school”. George Mason University’s conservative Antonin Scalia School of Law has intensified its influence on justices Neil Gorsuch, Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh by giving them lavish “teaching trips” to Italy and Iceland. In the case of Gorsuch he was given an all-expense paid trip to Padua, Italy–including an “aristocratic” old town apartment paid for by the Scalia law school. Kavanaugh’s “teaching” trip to England included a “nice cottage” in the countryside. No economy priced hotels for those guys! Sounds like all-expense paid luxury vacations, with a little “teaching” thrown in.

    SC Justices make about $280,000 per year. While most of us spend more than a third of our income on housing–and struggle to afford any type of vacation–SC Justices are treated to all expense-paid luxury vacations by a law school trying to influence the direction of Court opinions. And Alito wonders why the public has lost respect for the Court!

    1. Dennis – it is hard to see how a school of law’s sponsorship of a trip would influence justices on any particular case. But if the Antonin Scalia School of Law helps them to be as good a justice as Antonin Scalia, then we should all be grateful. I’m prettry sure he knew the definition of “woman”.

    2. “…is just another attempt to divert attention from the continuing ethics scandal involving conservative SC justices.”

      Dennis, there is no “ethics scandal” involving conservative justices. Democrats are at it again.

    1. Rassmussen? Really? I thought polls were unreliable according to conservatives on this blog.

        1. Actually, NUTCHACHACHA is unreliable as a partial and biased dependent and parasite.

          “Free money and free status” is NUTCHACHACHA’s slogan.

          With governmental assistance, funded by taxpayers, NUTCHACHACHA is just like a real person.

  4. As usual our leftist posters on this blog are saying it’s no big deal if Blinken told an itty bitty lie to Congress. 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.” The bottoms line is that we now know that the Hunter laptop was not Russian disinformation. When they signed the statement that Biden used in a Presidential debate they also knew that it was not Russian disinformation. They just wanted to see Biden win so they mislead the American people. They sent this campaign contribution with a check to the Democratic party. It’s like a convict sitting in jail and his buddies slapping him on the back for getting away with all the crimes he didn’t get caught doing.

    1. Thinkitthrough, you sound like a progressive (“the law is what I want it to be, not what’s written in the lawbook”). You’re building a strong case for “calling them out” (social oppprobrium). What’s that going to do to change the equation? Until it’s illegal for campaigns and public officials to defraud the public, it will continue.
      It will accelerate. Eventually, it will lead to a Constitutional crisis, where a dishonest candidate won, but is exposed before Inauguration Day. How would the system deal with that?

      Our system with its rigid timetable for elections and swearing in is quite vulnerable to frauds that work temporarily (as Morell’s did). Only if Public Frauds Deterrence becomes part of the law will political activists have to live under it.

    2. Yes the hypocrisy is stupefying here. You have the Marxists on here here screaming about how the 2020 election was straight up and Trump the criminal yet they and their corrupt DOJ think a political meme qualifies as election interference, a mostly peaceful protest is now insurrection and the gulag for persecuting those of differing opinion. All while watching this as the Biden criminal organization and their fixer Blinken become fully exposed. Blinken is reportedly responsible for coordinating an election interference fraud by having 50 intelligence officers sign a letter stipulating Hunter Bidens laptop was Russian disinformation ahead of the election. Lying to Congress while knowing the information was true and factual. Post election Canvassing reports indicated a sufficient number of voters would have not voted for Biden had they known the validity of the laptop information, Trump won. Of course wordsmith was employed in the letter “appears” to provide a defense much like Clinton the rapists meaning of “is”… This whole Administration is a corrupt farce, whilst most good men with the ability to stop it remain silent.
      God help America.

    3. TiT, given how much you lie it’s hard to take you seriously. Besides, I though righties were perfectly fine with lying and that kind of deceit. In fact it’s a matter of pride.

  5. So the latest take on it by the leftist is that because Blinken lied to Congress it was not illegal because it was a political act. Soon a new law will be passed that says if your a politician and you lie to Congress it’s not a criminal act because it was done in the pursuit of political aim. It gets more Orwellian day after day.

  6. The fact remains that, as far as Mike Morell, Tony Blinken, Joe Biden, or anyone else with political motives is concerned, it is LEGAL to deliberately push out a falsehood onto the American public. Even noted Constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley has championed the notion that free speech rights extend to cover claims shown later to be untrue. He puts them into the category of “speech you don’t like”.

    But, our elections were conceived by the Founders of as a means to muster “the consent of the governed” behind
    government. If that consent is obtained through crafted deceit, what remains the Madisonian ideal?….nothing. And we know from history that propaganda is an indispensable tool of the tyrant. Can we depend on the “free press” to do everything in its power to thwart the work of the propagandist? As we saw in 2020 on a number of fronts, the press can and will subordinate journalistic standards of truth-seeking in advancement of political goals.
    In other words, the press believes it enjoys the freedom to amplify public frauds.

    It’s a waste of time to “go after” the 51 signatories — because under current law, so long as their letter did not defame any party’s reputation (sorry Russia, yours is zilch), what they did was unsavory but still legal.

    The big question is, will it remain so going into future election campaigns? The deterrent needed is some kind of Public Frauds Deterrence law which treats defrauding the public for political gain as similar to defamation — giving the public the right to sue for punitive damages in a fast-response torts process.

    1. Pbinca, great insight. A point often overlooked when everyone is so focused on the “maliciousness” of the lie. Interestingly enough, it’s exactly what Trump does all the time.

    1. Thornton G. Sanders: Without a proper definition of “woman,” I guess we’ll never know. But one thing is certain: Blinken is not a man — he’s a puppet.

    2. I know it’s a rhetorical question, but maybe you are not aware that she is a DEM stalwart!

      She is WH cabinet secretary (Biden I) and was ECA assistant secretary of state (Obama II), later she helped launch and lead Axios. Prior: Deputy campaign manager for then-Senator Biden’s 2008 presidential campaign, served on Kerry 2004 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton’s 2000 senatorial campaign, in the Clinton WH as deputy director of scheduling for First Lady and as special assistant to the first lady’s chief of staff.
      Of Irish Catholic decent, she has two children.

  7. Blinken is truly a buffoon – both internationally and domestically. Good thing about buffoons is that they are notoiously bad at covering their tracks. As Voltaire reminds us of both the theater and men:

    “How many plays have been written in France?’ Candide asked the abbe.

    ‘Five or six thousand.’

    ‘That’s a lot,’ said Candide. ‘How many of them are good?’

    ‘Fifteen or sixteen,’ replied the abbe.

    ‘That’s a lot,’ said Martin.”

    ~Voltaire, Candide

    See why I love Voltaire! Learned French for him.

  8. Blinken is merely following the golden parachute pathway created by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Hillary profited immensely off of Russia, as Obama’s Secretary of State, from her infamous Uranium One deal, which she never disclosed per NYT.

    Justice Clarence Thomas’ crime is not being as evil well connected with the ruling elites as Hillary and Barack.

    the Biden Family, Blinken, Merrick Garland, the whole rot of them, are guilty, given the stare decisis paradigm that Nancy Pelosi recently articulated: “No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence.”

    The question remains, if they fail to prove their innocence, what to do with these insurrectionists?

    Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

    As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

  9. We will remember that Svelaz engages in the “whataboutism” that he criticizes in others.

  10. Oh please. Nothing is going to happen to him or any other criminal Democrat. I have read your blog religiously for several years. You have noticed we live in a judicial system with double standards. The media is the propaganda arm of the Democrats. Even local channels, like the ones where I live in Miami are all in. Makes me sick every time I try to watch the news. No scandal, no indictment. No scandal because the Democrats are shameless.

    1. Nothing is going to happen to him because there really is no evidence to support the allegations and insinuations being made. They’ve spent 5 years and all they have is possibly a few misdemeanors and a felony that can be downgraded to a misdemeanor or time served. All this is, is just a vehicle for spreading allegations and keeping alive any semblance of impropriety that they will never be able to prove. It’s feeding the rage that Turley humorously loves to criticize.

      1. So Svelaz, Blinken broke the law but it was only a little law as opposed to a big law. With this argument you make an attempt to justify his breaking of the law. This is a man in a position of leadership who expects us to believe that he is in the business of upholding the law while he himself commits an illegal act. The emails are there for all to see so we know he lied to Congress when he said he never contacted Hunter Biden. You excuse it because it may be pled down to a misdemeanor. It seems to me that if the man had been honest that no plea would be necessary. Thank you for admitting that the man did indeed break the law.

        1. TiT, “Blinken broke the law but it was only a little law as opposed to a big law.”

          There are only allegations. No real evidence that he indeed break the law. Concrete proof that what he said indeed break the law is required to make that statement. So far nobody has provided concrete proof that he did break the law. Remember, assumption is not proof.

      2. Svelaz, you leaving me laughing. First you say theirs no evidence and then you say the evidence only equates to a misdemeanor charge anyway. It’s too early in the morning to be in your cups.

      3. Svelaz – if Hunter’s “friend” paid $2,000,000 in delinquent taxes and penalties to the IRS, that implies that Hunter probably evaded paying at least $1,000,000 in current taxes. How is that a misdemeanor? The penalty for tax evasion is up to 5 years.

        1. Edward, the keyword here is “evasion”. He didn’t evade taxes, he failed to report it and pay. Evasion means he deliberately sought to hide the money which is not what he did. He failed to report it on his taxes. Failure to report is a misdemeanor. A friend paid for the delinquent taxes meaning the matter was resolved. Words have specific meanings in laws and statutes.

          The law requires the IRS prove the attempt to evade.

          “a] Attempt to evade assessment. The taxpayer must undertake some action, that is, engage in an affirmative act for the purpose of attempting to evade or defeat the assessment of a tax. This element requires more than passive neglect of a statutory duty. A mere act of willful omission does not satisfy the affirmative act requirement of I.R.C. § 7201. United States v. Masat, 896 F.2d 88, 97-99 (5th Cir. 1990).”

          He failed to report it. Which is required in order to show that his intent was willful. if he reported it and willfully refused to or hid the money then there would be a reason to call it an evasion. That’s why that charge won’t fly.

          1. Svelaz – how could he get millions of income and not know that he had it? He is supposed to be a businessman.

        1. On 12/24/09 Senate passed “Obamacare” by 60-39, with all GOP Senators opposing, including Susan Collins (R-ME), late John McCain (R-AZ), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

          Every Spring, the American Enterprice Institue holds it annual “World Forum” at Sea Island, GA. In ’16, informal topic: “How to stop Trump” with these notable attentees [1]:
          House: Paul Ryan (R-WI), Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Fred Upton (R-MI), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Tom Price (R-GA), and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX); John Delaney (D-MD), Kevin Brady (R-TX) and Diane Black (R-TN).
          Senate: Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Tom Cotton (R-AK), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Tim Scott (R-SC), Rob Portman (R-OH) and Ben Sasse (R-NE).
          Hot Shots: Philip Anschutz (Washington Examiner), Arthur Sulzberger (NYT), Bill Kristol (R-voters against Trump), Tim Cook (CEO-Apple) , Larry Page (Google), Sean Parker (Napster, Facebook), Elon Musk (Tesla), and Karl Rove (GOP political consultant, policy advisor, and lobbyist).

          Allegedly, it was prioritized by then Majority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to “repeal & replace ObamaCare”. On 7/27/17, with a 51-49 (+ VP Pence) GOP majority, the Health Care Freedom Act bill was defeated 49–51, with Susan Collins (R-ME), late John McCain (R-AZ), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) as defectors.

          The Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC run by allies of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, endorsed Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) for re-election in ’22. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC), who will announce on 5/24/23 if he runs for President in ’24, backed her.


    2. Manuel Lopez, I agree with most of your argument. However, it seems to me that you are repeating the argument that it’s no use so why keep pointing out the corruption. The one thing that could and should happen is that they lose their power. So I say to Professor Turley please continue to point out the chicanery of the Biden administration. Proof of your success has recently been displayed by the Democratic loss of the House of Representatives. Informing the voter is not a waste of time just because someone doesn’t end up in jail. Just like with O.J. Simpson we still know the man did the deed.

      1. Thinkitthrough: Good point(s) –and if I may respectfully add, with 70mm hits on his blog, he is the one to watch for pointing out things that the massive media complex is silent on. For example, in criticizing Trump defense counsel’s questioning of E. J. Carroll on Monday, both NBC and ABC conveniently left out questions where defense counsel scored points. Same here on this blog, in the comments section (selective facts). So I say, the more visibility that the good professor brings to deleted, avoided, or not-covered news/facts, the better for all of us (domestically and globally).

          1. “With 70M hits on his blog, he is the one to watch for pointing out things that the massive media complex is silent on.”

            The overwhelming number of columns are commissioned works that had previously been published in FNN (like this one), NYP, The Hill or USA today.

          2. Lin. Blog “hits”, “views” are pointless. Every time you refresh the page constitutes a “view”. Any “hit” does not mean someone read the an article either. It’s not as relevant as it seems.

      2. “Proof of your success has recently been displayed by the Democratic loss of the House of Representatives.”

        Professor will be very happy to receive such a well-reasoned comment!

  11. OT; it’s interesting that Turley is ignoring a real and quite problematic free speech issue going on with the Montana legislature. They are, as many republican legislatures are doing, silencing democratic legislature under the pretext of violating rules of decorum when al they have done is exercise their free speech right to criticize republicans. Rep. Zooey Zephyr sued to have her position restored after republicans in the legislature prevented her from engaging in any debate for the rest of the session because she dared to criticize their anti-transgender legislation. Do the legislature have the right to silence her and her constituents because they were offended by her criticism?

    Her attempt to sue was stymied yesterday because the court could not do anything. Lawyers for the republican legislators stated in court that the court could not interfere with the legislature’s actions due to the separation of powers issue. But does that mean the legislature can infringe on her free speech rights because the legislature has the power to regulate or discipline legislators? The constitution does NOT make an exception in that case. The court ignored the fact that two of her constituents also sued and they are NOT under the legislature’s “control” as they are with Rep. Zephyr.

    1. Svelaz – Yes, courts will probably not intervene to protect the free speech rights of members of a state or federal legislature. Do you think that state legislators or members of Cogress can dictate to courts how they decide cases, who gets to write opinions, or ask questions at oral argument? In general, each branch of the government polices itself. Of course, you might find the odd ball judge who would want to intervene, but that would be rare. BTW, I agree with you that Republican legistators in Montana went “over the top” in penalizing this gentleman/lady for claiming that their hands would be bloody for refusing to enact gun controls. By the standards of Washington DC, or this blog, that is rather innoucuous rhetoric. Hopefully, saner heads will prevail.

      1. Edward, glad we agree on something.

        “In general, each branch of the government polices itself.” But they are also supposed to be a check on the other. If legislators are silencing one of another because they got offended does the constitution which they swore to uphold is supposed to prevent them from doing what they did to Rep. Zooey Zephyr? The court could have just reminded the legislature that legislators are don’t lose their constitutional protections because they become legislators. As a check, at a minimum, a court could indeed remind the legislature that what they did do is a constitutional violation.

        I am surprised that this issue isn’t getting Turley’s attention because it’s way more interesting than this Biden and Blinken stuff. The Montana case would be a much better topic for Turley than what he has been peddling lately.

  12. Meanwhile, the PERJURIST Peter Strzok is protecting Blinken from HIS perjury. It must be wonderful to be a Progressive, where you can do and say whatever you want with absolutely NO CONSEQUENCES!!
    This makes perfect sense when you look back at the body of Peter Strzok’s work and his attitude towards his own behavior. He was simply acting politically, not illegally.
    Quote Tweet
    Tom Elliott
    Former fed @PeteStrzok defends @SecBlinken falsely testifying in 2020 that he never emailed with Hunter Biden: “There’s a difference between catching somebody in a criminal act and catching them in a politically problematic act.”

  13. “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.”

    Of course “we still need more details on the underlying facts”, but that doesn’t stop Turley from implying and assuming a lot of things not in evidence and based on unconfirmed “reports” and “allegations”. Turley loves to gossip about political possibilities and portray them as serious truths that must be addressed. It’s a fancy way to say “I’m not saying any of what I’m saying is true, but I will make is sound true so my gullible MAGA nutty readers will see it as true”. Sadly they love that stuff, keeps them busy with the rage of the day column.

    1. Svelaz states, at the end of his comment, “Turley loves to gossip about…”
      Sadly, I have corrected the comment:
      “[Svelaz] loves to gossip about political possibilities and portray them as serious truths that must be addressed. It’s a fancy way to say ‘I’m not saying any of what I’m saying is true, but I will [pseudo-authoritatively] make is sound true so my gullible [limited co-commenters, Gigi, Dennis, and Anonymous] will see it as true’. Sadly they love that stuff, keeps them busy with the rage of the day column.”

      1. Lin, cute. But no cigar. Criticizing Turley is not gossiping. You should know better than try to conflate criticism with gossip. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Bad Lin.

        Turley’s copious use of words like “alleged”, “may”, “reportedly”, “possible”, “could have”, etc. Are words that are always used when one is spreading gossip and innuendo. Critiquing Turley and calling him out on it is not…gossip.

        1. Svelaz says: “Criticizing Turley is not gossiping. You should know better…”

          My comment does not even mention Svelaz “criticizing Turley.”
          Please note that my comment very expressly and explicitly turns tables on Svelaz commenting on “political possibilities and portray[ing] them as serious truths that must be addressed.”
          Please, dear Svelaz, try to “contextually” and “comprehensively” read more carefully.
          II’ll leave off the “Tsk, tsk, tsk”
          Thanks anyway, yours truly, lin

          1. “My comment does not even mention Svelaz “criticizing Turley.”

            But your sarcastic reposting of my comment implied it when you “turned the tables” on me. Contextually and comprehensively that was your intent.

            1. Svelaz: thank you for pointing out Turley’s obvious agenda. The attacks against you by lin and the usual suspects are pathetic. The bottom line of today’s little toilet piece is to once again imply there’s validity to the “Hunter Biden Scandal”. All the while, Turley ignores the E Jean Carroll trial. I don’t have a crystal ball, but one commentator I read pointed out that Tacopina can’t defend Trump on the grounds of his being an honorable person, because everyone knows he isn’t. Also shot is the defense that he is respected and is honest–something else that won’t fly. So, he attacks Jean. Another commentator pointed out the likely motivation–Trump’s famous temper. E. Jean, who had written a skit for SNL starring William Shatner putting on a teddy over his clothes, was teasing Trump about trying on lingerie. Trump’s fragile ego cannot handle what he perceives as disrespect from someone he deems inferior, so he sexually assaulted her to put her in her place. Bolstering this theory is Ivana Trump’s testimony that when she didn’t seem sympathetic enough to his pain after scalp reduction surgery to hide his crown baldness, he raped her. She was forced to recant this at the risk of losing alimony, but Trump’s history of rage is well-documented–to wit: Cassidy Hutchinson testified that Trump threw a bottle of ketchup against the wall of the White House dining room when one of his minions told him he had lost the election. She also testified that he lunged at the driver of his SUV when he refused to take him to the Capitol to lead the attack on Congress. Then, there’s all of the unmitigated rage every time some story is reported that makes him look bad–the all-caps tirads. Turley has nothing to say about this–today’s piece is just another deflection.

              1. Gigi: Great post on how Turley relies on distractive issues to divert attention from the important stuff. Trump does the same thing. Flying off to Scotland rather then attending and testifying in his own trial! He thinks the public won’t pay attention to the trial and just focus on his new golf course with all the publicity he gets from that. See my posts the last couple of days. Turley also wants to divert our attention from the ongoing SC ethics scandal involving the right-wing Justices. We need to keeps our eyes on the ball so the magician Mr. Turley doesn’t get us to focus only his right hand! Turley would do well at the Magic Club!

              2. 🤡🤡, you realize Plugs Biden has hair transplants right, he’s also been accused of sexual harassment and assault. Seeing your vitriolic comments on President Donald J Trump, I have to ask did Bill Clinton rape Ms. Broderick and pedo out at Pedo Island with Epstein and Gates? Enquiring Minds want to know!

                1. Don’t use the word “president” in association with that pig–he doesn’t belong in the same breath as Lincoln, FDR. JFK, Eisenhower, Lincoln or Washington. He stole the title by cheating because he knew he couldn’t win, and therefore can’t ever claim it legitimately. And, Joe Biden didn’t rape his wife for failing to be sympathetic to scalp reduction surgery, either, which Ivana testified to under oath. What woman has ever testified, in court, under oath, that Biden sexually assaulted her? The issue isn’t baldness treatment–it’s Trump’s famous rage when he perceives disrespect, especially from someone he considers inferior, and how that plays into the motivation for raping E. Jean Carroll in the lingerie department. Rape is about power and control–not sexual attractiveness, and Biden has never been accused of being thin-skinned enough that he would need to show a woman who’s boss, or flying into a rage when things don’t go his way. That’s why I don’t believe such allegations. It makes sense that if Trump thought Jean’s suggestion of trying on lingerie was some kind of affront to his “manhood”, that he’d teach her a lesson by raping her. You members of Cult 45 don’t see the difference between pointing out Trump’s foibles and being “vitriolic”, which is another discipleship technique that comes from alt-right media–their shorthand dismissal of criticism of Trump as “TDS”, so you will just ignore the facts. No one needs to make things up about Trump, because the facts are well-known. Deflecting away from Trump’s sexual misconduct, for which he is on trial currently, and which he admitted in the “Access Hollywood” tape, by bringing up Bill Clinton is a technique taught to you as a faithful disciple of alt-right media. It doesn’t matter whether Clinton did or did not rape Broderick, because that’s no defense to Trump bragging about grabbing womens’ genitals, or the multiple women who have testified, under oath, that he raped and/or sexually assaulted them. E. Jean Carroll is not alone.

                  1. 🤡🤡🤡
                    President Donald J. Trump
                    Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene
                    Barry Sotero
                    Bubba and Cankles Clinton
                    Hey, who bombed a Sudanese pharmaceutical company to distract from getting a BJ in the Oral Office? Who swore under oath that he had no sexual relations with that woman?
                    Enquiring minds want to know!

                  2. Gigi says, “Don’t use the word “president” in association with that pig–he doesn’t belong in the same breath as Lincoln, FDR. JFK, Eisenhower, Lincoln or Washington.”
                    Gigi, don’t associate yourself with the intelligent, inquisitive, polite, courteous, or worthwhile commenters here, in the same breath as yourself.

    2. Oh good grief–your own people say that Blinken was behind this thing. Biden lied through his teeth at the debate (with an assist from Chris Wallace). You really ok with that?

      1. Nope, they didn’t say that. That’s the point. Turley is IMPLYING they said that thru cryptic use of a yet unseen testimony that is being spread by hearsay. It’s pretty neat in a dishonest-kind-of-way. Turley is very good at that.

        Turley relies on people not really diving into the details where most of his arguments and opinions tend to fall apart or expose his dishonesty.

        1. Talk about believing the propaganda being spewed. They NEED useful idiots such as yourself Svelez.

          1. SPO, “But you’re ok with Biden lying through his teeth, though.”

            Nope, didn’t say that either.

    1. Really? That’s the argument. I guess Comer forgot that republicans including trump get away with a lot of things that the average joe could not get away with. Please, the whole thing is based on speculation and assumptions that are not verified only alleged or reportedly have been said.

  14. “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.”

    That’s not what Blinken said, which is why Turley doesn’t provide a link to the interview by Fox News reporter Benjamin Hall. Blinken didn’t suggest that he is free of blame in the creation of the letter. In the interview Blinken doesn’t say that at all. All he did was give non-answers to Benjamin Hall’s questions. It’s notable that Turley doesn’t’ directly quote Blinken saying what he “suggests” he said. That’s just turley being dishonest with the facts.

    1. (1) Respectfully, the good professor states, verbatim, that Blinken “SUGGESTS….” (emphasis mine). Do you understand the difference between “Blinken suggests that he is free of blame” and “Blinken states that he is free of blame?”

      (2) Actual interview text:
      “QUESTION: I want to ask you about the letter that was written concerning Hunter Biden’s laptop that said it was Russian disinformation. Can you explain what your role was in that and if you incentivized it?
      SECRETARY BLINKEN: Well, I don’t do politics and don’t engage in it. But 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.”
      FACTS: Blinken called Mike Morrell. Shortly thereafter, letter is published. Morrell states that Blinken was “the impetus.”

      Let’s let the American public decide whether Blinken is correct when he “suggests that he is free of blame in the creation of the 2020 letter…”
      Do you need to follow your own advice to other commenters to “read more comprehensively?”

      1. Anonymous, LOL! You’re an idiot. Blinken didn’t say he is free of blame, he gave a non-answer to the question. Which is not really saying he is free of blame. He deflected.

        Stating verbatim that he “suggests” doesn’t mean he is saying he is free of blame. The professor didn’t link to the interview because Blinken provided a non-answer, meaning he didn’t suggest anything. That’s why Turley didn’t post Blinken’s answer verbatim. Blinken never stated that he is free of blame. That’s turley’s assumption not a direct quote from Blinken.

        Simply using the word “impetus” without any context is meaningless Turley even pointed out the problem of using the semantic. Quoting Turley,

        “Morell called him the “impetus” for 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.”

        Plus how does Turley know how Morell did not appear to have any doubts or hesitation? He wasn’t there. It was a private closed door testimony. You can tell he is making a LOT of assumptions on very little information.

        Apparently you are not reading for full comprehension. Try again.

        1. Look in the mirror if you want to see one of the biggest idiots who comment on this blog. YOU are pathetic.

      2. “Let’s let the American public decide whether Blinken is correct when he “suggests that he is free of blame in the creation of the 2020 letter…”

        That would be hard to do when Turely and republicans are intentionally misrepresenting the facts and not providing the full context of Morell’s testimony by releasing the transcript of his full answers. Not the hearsay sprinkled with tid-bits of what he said. Right?

      3. Anonynous! Looks like someone actually has provided the full answer and questions of Morell.

        “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.”

        Oops. That’’s probably why Turley and Republicans didn’t provide the full transcript of the testimony. Because Turley is lying by omission. Yikes!

        1. Svelaz: thank you. The disciples simply cannot handle facts, and Turley dances around them while at the same time accusing others of doing just that. It’s amazling what money can buy.

        2. Svelaz – you don’t need to “solicit” something to suggest it. When Henry II said: “Will someone rid me of this troublesome priest”, he did not need to spell out what he wanted. Becket was quickly dispatched by sword-stroke. Morrell used a word processor.

          1. edwardmahl: I wrote the above (orange Anonymous comment @ 10:36) that has caused such a reaction from Svelaz and Gigi. Sometimes I hit “send” prematurely. Sometimes I forget to compliment you on some of the pointed observations you make. Sometimes we know we have hit home, judged by the acerbic reaction(s).

            1. Lin,
              “Sometimes we know we have hit home, judged by the acerbic reaction(s).”
              Well said.
              Watching them spin like a top to justify their hypocrisy is when I know the good professor and other commenters have hit home.

            2. Lin I would say your reaction was more pronounced since you were clearly rushing to post, hence the premature hitting of the “submit” button.

          2. Quoting Henry who already had a well established and authoritative reputation his “suggestions” did not need interpretation. However your bad attempt at equivalency leaves out the fact that Blinken does not have that kind of reputation which would automatically lead someone to believe that’s what he meant. That’s why the accusations are all based on tidbits of hearsay and omissions of fact.

            1. Svelaz – His “suggestion” carried with it the possibility of a job in government and also a warm spot in the hearts of Democrats, who crave power above any ethical nicety.

    1. (This is a phrased parody I first used about six months ago, on this blog. It still holds to be true.)

Leave a Reply