Election Meddling and the Hunter Biden Laptop
We now know that it was neocon princeling Anthony Blinken who instructed CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell to organize the now-notorious “Public Statement on the Hunter Biden Emails,” signed by 51 intelligence professionals, following the discovery of a laptop owned by Hunter Biden with incriminating evidence of corruption of the Biden family. These individuals, including former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper and past CIA Directors Michael Hayden, Leon Panetta, and John Brennan, all proclaimed that the release of these revelations “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” This narrative continued to be circulated until the New York Times ruefully conceded in March of 2022 that the laptop story was legitimate. Some of these 51 signators may be able to plead incompetence, the majority are simply bald-faced liars; none, however, can plead innocence.
Liars’ Poker: 'Double or Nothing'
Right on cue, a similar letter came out in December of 2024, signed by “almost 100 former intelligence and national security officials,” opposing the confirmation of Tulsi Gabbard. One of the reasons cited for their opposition is that she is said to have “publicly cast doubt on U.S. intelligence reports and overwhelming public reporting that Assad carried out chemical weapons attacks on Syrian civilians, giving credence to the debunked conspiracy[sic] that the attack was staged by agents of the United Kingdom.” It is interesting to note here that it is considered intolerable to cast doubt on “overwhelming public reporting” by the same press courtesans who told us that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Also noteworthy is that the majority of those who signed this letter are retired ambassadors or other State Department functionaries, which suggests that Secretary of State Blinken may be reprising his role as organizer of the “laptop letter caper.”
In response, a spokeswoman for Gabbard said, “These unfounded attacks are from the same geniuses who have blood on their hands from decades of faulty ‘intelligence,’ including the non-existent weapons of mass destruction. These intel officials continue to use classification as a partisan weapon to smear and imply things about their political enemy without putting the facts out.”
The British Perspective
If one wants to know why the British establishment—members of whose intelligence agencies, such as “former” British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, and his controller, former head of British Intelligence (1999-2004) Sir Richard Dearlove, played such a central role in Russiagate—would now be so heavily involved, as a foreign power, in attempting to block the appointments of Patel and Gabbard, it is often helpful to go to the unofficial organ of the British establishment, the London Economist. The Economist has published two major articles on Tulsi Gabbard in the past two months, signaling its concern over the threat she poses to the sort of “special relationship” that is typified by the swapping of Orwellian surveillance data between the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and the U.K.’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)(more on this below). Their November 24th article affects a flippant, snarky tone, with the title “Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard are coming for the spooks” and the subtitle “The spy who purged me.” But their underlying anxiety comes out in such ominous warnings as, “Within the Five Eyes intelligence pact, made up of America, Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand, signals-intelligence gathering is so tightly integrated that it would be impossible to unravel without causing massive disruption to America itself.”
The December 13th article describes Gabbard as a “Democratic apostate and apologist for Vladimir Putin,” and approvingly quotes the ever-disingenuous Sen. Adam Schiff, who warns that if American allies “don’t trust the head of our intelligence agencies, they’ll stop sharing information with us.” Along with the tacky commentary on personal appearance which is always reserved for female political figures, the Economist can’t contain its indignation over her criticisms of “regime change wars” and “neocon war hawks.”
The Daily Telegraph published a more overtly hysterical article with the title, “British defence figures ‘alarmed’ by Trump’s choice of ‘pro-Moscow’ Tulsi Gabbard.” They worry about “potential reductions in intelligence sharing across the Five Eyes alliance.” The article quotes former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, who complained that Gabbard has “no experience of intelligence and security.” No mention is made that Dearlove was involved in certifying the fake story that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, used by the Bush administration to launch the war against Iraq in 2003; and the Russiagate story, which included British “confirmation” that Putin was involved in rigging the 2016 election, backed by the fake dossier produced by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, and vouched for by Dearlove. Unnamed British Government sources were trotted out to say that if Gabbard were to take up the position that America would remain the UK’s “closest ally”, there would be no issues with the relationship between the two nations.
In a separate article titled “Who is Kash Patel”, the Telegraph introduces Patel (an attorney and former federal prosecutor at the U.S. Department of Justice who has served as senior counsel on counterterrorism for the House Select Committee on Intelligence in 2017, as well as senior director of the Counterterrorism Directorate at the U.S. National Security Council and Chief of Staff to the acting U.S. secretary of defense Christopher C. Miller,) as a “children’s author.”