More election interference
-
CIA fast-tracked letter that falsely suggested Hunter Biden laptop was Russia op
The CIA conspired with former acting director Mike Morell and the Biden campaign to produce a letter falsely claiming that emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop were Russian disinformation — and solicited signatures from at least one former intelligence official, a staff report from the House Judiciary Committee is expected to reveal Wednesday.
Morell told the CIA’s Prepublication Classification Review Board (PCRB) that he needed the letter approved as an unusual “rush job” that day, October 19, 2020, in an effort to provide then-candidate Joe Biden ammunition in the final presidential debate to discredit The Post’s report on the Biden emails which had been published five days earlier.
That day, a CIA employee working for the PCRB solicited a signature for Morell’s letter from former CIA analyst David Cariens, according to a written statement by Cariens to the Subcommittees on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, and Intelligence.
Cariens explained that he had been speaking with the PCRB about the prepublication review of his own memoir and during that phone call the CIA employee “asked” him if he would sign the draft letter.
“When the person in charge of reviewing my book called to say it was approved with no changes, I was told about the draft letter. The person asked me if I would be willing to sign . . . I agreed to sign.”
Cariens told his wife, Janice Cariens, also a former CIA officer, about the letter and she also agreed to sign.
Morell directed the PCRB that “[t]his is a rush job, as it needs to get out as soon as possible.”
-
An earlier release revealed that Joe Biden’s campaign helped engineer a statement from 51 former U.S. spies that claimed the laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” That letter provided Democrats, journalists and social-media companies the excuse to dismiss and censor evidence of Hunter’s influence peddling, removing an obstacle from his father’s path to victory.
Now we find out that, according to a written statement supplied to the committee, an active CIA official joined the effort to solicit more signers to the letter. The campaign to elect Joe Biden extended into Langley.
The report (issued jointly by the Judiciary and Intelligence committees and the Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government) tells the sordid story of the letter, beginning with a call from Biden campaign official Antony Blinken to former Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell three days after the New York Post published its laptop scoop. Mr. Morell told the committees that Mr. Blinken wanted his “reaction” to the laptop news, but another signer said Mr. Morell put it to him bluntly: the Biden campaign “asked” for the letter.
Mr. Morell says he scurried to help because he wanted Joe Biden “to win the election,” or, as he emailed former CIA Director John Brennan, because he wanted him to have “a talking point” for the final presidential debate. Behind the scenes he campaigned for more sign-ups, because “the more former intelligence officers the better” and the “campaign will be thrilled.” The organizers put special focus on flagging the credentials of officials with Russia experience to lend credibility to their unsubstantiated claims.
The initial draft contained two impassioned paragraphs defending Mr. Biden against criticism over his son’s seedy work in Ukraine. Some viewed them as too partisan, and they were removed. We learn that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper—last seen playing bandmaster in the Russia-collusion hoax—contributed the “all the classic earmarks” line to “strengthen the verbiage.” We also learn that of the 36 former intel officials Mr. Morell approached, 26 declined to sign—something organizers failed to note when flogging their letter as the widespread view of the intel community.
So far, so partisan. Here’s where it crosses a line. Former CIA employees are required to submit things they intend to make public to the CIA’s Prepublication Classification Review Board, to ensure they aren’t spilling classified info. The board is made up of CIA officials and is small and notoriously slow. Its website warns that even “routine” items like résumés or op-eds “may require several weeks to months” for approval.
No such problem for the well-connected Mr. Morell. He submitted his letter for clearance at 6:34 a.m. on Oct. 19, and presto, it was approved by 12:44 p.m. A colleague texts him to congratulate: “U have some juice!” Mr. Morell—at the time auditioning for the CIA job in a Biden administration—jokes: “They are probably afraid I’m coming back!”
Around the same time, former CIA official David Cariens receives a call from a person on the board. After telling Mr. Cariens that his memoir had been approved (lucky!), the official suddenly tells him about the draft letter, describes its contents, and asks him to get on board. He does, as does his wife, also a former CIA official. Mr. Cariens now says he can’t remember the person’s name or when the call happened. He nonetheless sent an email to the organizers declaring himself a willing signatory at 10:35 a.m.
That a CIA official was using government time and resources to scheme with outside partisans to assist in Mr. Biden’s victory is worthy of termination. Consider, too, that this CIA official was better placed to know there was no truth to the letter’s assertion. That very day, then-DNI John Ratcliffe—privy to all—had publicly said the intel community had nothing to support the claim that the laptop was “disinformation.”
Such reckless disregard for rules raises the legitimate question of what other ways the CIA may have been tilting the political scales in 2020. Predictably, the agency is ignoring a request by the committees for documents related to the board’s clearance of the letter and any interactions it had with former employees (like Mr. Cariens) about the letter. There’s no excuse for such stonewalling, especially given the board itself has declared the whole issue nonclassified.
But it’s par for the course. Federal intel and law enforcement agencies ever more brazenly interfere in politics (with leaks, probes, tip-offs to politicians), then retreat behind claims of secrecy when queried. They can’t have it both ways.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
An earlier release revealed that Joe Biden’s campaign helped engineer a statement from 51 former U.S. spies that claimed the laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” That letter provided Democrats, journalists and social-media companies the excuse to dismiss and censor evidence of Hunter’s influence peddling, removing an obstacle from his father’s path to victory.
Now we find out that, according to a written statement supplied to the committee, an active CIA official joined the effort to solicit more signers to the letter. The campaign to elect Joe Biden extended into Langley.
The report (issued jointly by the Judiciary and Intelligence committees and the Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government) tells the sordid story of the letter, beginning with a call from Biden campaign official Antony Blinken to former Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell three days after the New York Post published its laptop scoop. Mr. Morell told the committees that Mr. Blinken wanted his “reaction” to the laptop news, but another signer said Mr. Morell put it to him bluntly: the Biden campaign “asked” for the letter.
Mr. Morell says he scurried to help because he wanted Joe Biden “to win the election,” or, as he emailed former CIA Director John Brennan, because he wanted him to have “a talking point” for the final presidential debate. Behind the scenes he campaigned for more sign-ups, because “the more former intelligence officers the better” and the “campaign will be thrilled.” The organizers put special focus on flagging the credentials of officials with Russia experience to lend credibility to their unsubstantiated claims.
The initial draft contained two impassioned paragraphs defending Mr. Biden against criticism over his son’s seedy work in Ukraine. Some viewed them as too partisan, and they were removed. We learn that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper—last seen playing bandmaster in the Russia-collusion hoax—contributed the “all the classic earmarks” line to “strengthen the verbiage.” We also learn that of the 36 former intel officials Mr. Morell approached, 26 declined to sign—something organizers failed to note when flogging their letter as the widespread view of the intel community.
So far, so partisan. Here’s where it crosses a line. Former CIA employees are required to submit things they intend to make public to the CIA’s Prepublication Classification Review Board, to ensure they aren’t spilling classified info. The board is made up of CIA officials and is small and notoriously slow. Its website warns that even “routine” items like résumés or op-eds “may require several weeks to months” for approval.
No such problem for the well-connected Mr. Morell. He submitted his letter for clearance at 6:34 a.m. on Oct. 19, and presto, it was approved by 12:44 p.m. A colleague texts him to congratulate: “U have some juice!” Mr. Morell—at the time auditioning for the CIA job in a Biden administration—jokes: “They are probably afraid I’m coming back!”
Around the same time, former CIA official David Cariens receives a call from a person on the board. After telling Mr. Cariens that his memoir had been approved (lucky!), the official suddenly tells him about the draft letter, describes its contents, and asks him to get on board. He does, as does his wife, also a former CIA official. Mr. Cariens now says he can’t remember the person’s name or when the call happened. He nonetheless sent an email to the organizers declaring himself a willing signatory at 10:35 a.m.
That a CIA official was using government time and resources to scheme with outside partisans to assist in Mr. Biden’s victory is worthy of termination. Consider, too, that this CIA official was better placed to know there was no truth to the letter’s assertion. That very day, then-DNI John Ratcliffe—privy to all—had publicly said the intel community had nothing to support the claim that the laptop was “disinformation.”
Such reckless disregard for rules raises the legitimate question of what other ways the CIA may have been tilting the political scales in 2020. Predictably, the agency is ignoring a request by the committees for documents related to the board’s clearance of the letter and any interactions it had with former employees (like Mr. Cariens) about the letter. There’s no excuse for such stonewalling, especially given the board itself has declared the whole issue nonclassified.
But it’s par for the course. Federal intel and law enforcement agencies ever more brazenly interfere in politics (with leaks, probes, tip-offs to politicians), then retreat behind claims of secrecy when queried. They can’t have it both ways.
@George-K said in More election interference:
Such reckless disregard for rules raises the legitimate question of what other ways the CIA may have been tilting the political scales in 2020. Predictably, the agency is ignoring a request by the committees for documents related to the board’s clearance of the letter and any interactions it had with former employees (like Mr. Cariens) about the letter. There’s no excuse for such stonewalling, especially given the board itself has declared the whole issue nonclassified.
As the writer says, par for the course. If the worm ever turns on this, we'll have to shoot people in the streets to restore order.
-
An earlier release revealed that Joe Biden’s campaign helped engineer a statement from 51 former U.S. spies that claimed the laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” That letter provided Democrats, journalists and social-media companies the excuse to dismiss and censor evidence of Hunter’s influence peddling, removing an obstacle from his father’s path to victory.
Now we find out that, according to a written statement supplied to the committee, an active CIA official joined the effort to solicit more signers to the letter. The campaign to elect Joe Biden extended into Langley.
The report (issued jointly by the Judiciary and Intelligence committees and the Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government) tells the sordid story of the letter, beginning with a call from Biden campaign official Antony Blinken to former Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell three days after the New York Post published its laptop scoop. Mr. Morell told the committees that Mr. Blinken wanted his “reaction” to the laptop news, but another signer said Mr. Morell put it to him bluntly: the Biden campaign “asked” for the letter.
Mr. Morell says he scurried to help because he wanted Joe Biden “to win the election,” or, as he emailed former CIA Director John Brennan, because he wanted him to have “a talking point” for the final presidential debate. Behind the scenes he campaigned for more sign-ups, because “the more former intelligence officers the better” and the “campaign will be thrilled.” The organizers put special focus on flagging the credentials of officials with Russia experience to lend credibility to their unsubstantiated claims.
The initial draft contained two impassioned paragraphs defending Mr. Biden against criticism over his son’s seedy work in Ukraine. Some viewed them as too partisan, and they were removed. We learn that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper—last seen playing bandmaster in the Russia-collusion hoax—contributed the “all the classic earmarks” line to “strengthen the verbiage.” We also learn that of the 36 former intel officials Mr. Morell approached, 26 declined to sign—something organizers failed to note when flogging their letter as the widespread view of the intel community.
So far, so partisan. Here’s where it crosses a line. Former CIA employees are required to submit things they intend to make public to the CIA’s Prepublication Classification Review Board, to ensure they aren’t spilling classified info. The board is made up of CIA officials and is small and notoriously slow. Its website warns that even “routine” items like résumés or op-eds “may require several weeks to months” for approval.
No such problem for the well-connected Mr. Morell. He submitted his letter for clearance at 6:34 a.m. on Oct. 19, and presto, it was approved by 12:44 p.m. A colleague texts him to congratulate: “U have some juice!” Mr. Morell—at the time auditioning for the CIA job in a Biden administration—jokes: “They are probably afraid I’m coming back!”
Around the same time, former CIA official David Cariens receives a call from a person on the board. After telling Mr. Cariens that his memoir had been approved (lucky!), the official suddenly tells him about the draft letter, describes its contents, and asks him to get on board. He does, as does his wife, also a former CIA official. Mr. Cariens now says he can’t remember the person’s name or when the call happened. He nonetheless sent an email to the organizers declaring himself a willing signatory at 10:35 a.m.
That a CIA official was using government time and resources to scheme with outside partisans to assist in Mr. Biden’s victory is worthy of termination. Consider, too, that this CIA official was better placed to know there was no truth to the letter’s assertion. That very day, then-DNI John Ratcliffe—privy to all—had publicly said the intel community had nothing to support the claim that the laptop was “disinformation.”
Such reckless disregard for rules raises the legitimate question of what other ways the CIA may have been tilting the political scales in 2020. Predictably, the agency is ignoring a request by the committees for documents related to the board’s clearance of the letter and any interactions it had with former employees (like Mr. Cariens) about the letter. There’s no excuse for such stonewalling, especially given the board itself has declared the whole issue nonclassified.
But it’s par for the course. Federal intel and law enforcement agencies ever more brazenly interfere in politics (with leaks, probes, tip-offs to politicians), then retreat behind claims of secrecy when queried. They can’t have it both ways.
@George-K said in More election interference:
An earlier release revealed that Joe Biden’s campaign helped engineer a statement from 51 former U.S. spies that claimed the laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
The former DNI, James Clapper, who signed onto this letter will not retract his claim that this "had all the marks of Russian disinformation" despite the fact that the federal government is using the same laptop as evidence in a trial.
-
@George-K said in More election interference:
An earlier release revealed that Joe Biden’s campaign helped engineer a statement from 51 former U.S. spies that claimed the laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
The former DNI, James Clapper, who signed onto this letter will not retract his claim that this "had all the marks of Russian disinformation" despite the fact that the federal government is using the same laptop as evidence in a trial.
-
@George-K said in More election interference:
James Clapper, who signed onto this letter will not retract his claim
An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.
@Copper said in More election interference:
@George-K said in More election interference:
James Clapper, who signed onto this letter will not retract his claim
An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.
In his defense, it is possible that it did look like Russian operation.
Kind of like a expert witness at a trial who says, "In my opinion, it is possible that he was killed somewhere else and brought to his home."
Then proof comes out that the person was killed in their home.
Does not change that the expert witness said it was possible that the murder occurred outside the home. The expert witness could still be correct. Based on the evidence at the time, the murder COULD have occurred outside the house.
-
@Copper said in More election interference:
@George-K said in More election interference:
James Clapper, who signed onto this letter will not retract his claim
An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.
In his defense, it is possible that it did look like Russian operation.
Kind of like a expert witness at a trial who says, "In my opinion, it is possible that he was killed somewhere else and brought to his home."
Then proof comes out that the person was killed in their home.
Does not change that the expert witness said it was possible that the murder occurred outside the home. The expert witness could still be correct. Based on the evidence at the time, the murder COULD have occurred outside the house.
@taiwan_girl said in More election interference:
In his defense, it is possible that it did look like Russian operation.
Supposedly the "Looks like Russian disinformation" story was fielded by Sec-State-to-be Anthony Blinken.
A former CIA official testified that then-Biden campaign senior adviser, now-Secretary of State Antony Blinken "played a role in the inception" of the public statement signed by current and past intelligence officials that claimed the Hunter Biden laptop was part of a Russian disinformation campaign.
Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell testified before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, and revealed that Blinken was "the impetus" of the public statement signed in October 2020 that implied the laptop belonging to Hunter Biden was disinformation.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner, R-Ohio, sent a letter to Blinken Thursday, notifying him that the panels are "conducting oversight of federal law-enforcement and intelligence matters within our respective jurisdictions."
"We are examining that public statement signed by 51 former intelligence officials that falsely discredited a New York Post story regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop as supposed Russian disinformation," they wrote. "As part of our oversight, we have learned that you played a role in the inception of this statement while serving as a Biden campaign advisor, and we therefore request your assistance with our oversight."
In October 2020, weeks before the presidential election, dozens of ex-national security officials signed onto a letter claiming that Hunter's laptop had "all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation."
The former officials included former Obama CIA Director John Brennan, former Obama DNI James Clapper, and former CIA director, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, among others.
The lawmakers said that based on Morell’s testimony, it is "apparent" that the Biden campaign "played an active role in the origins of the public statement, which had the effect of helping to suppress the Hunter Biden story and preventing American citizens from making a fully informed decision during the 2020 presidential election."
