Could the Blinken revelations lead to Biden’s impeachment?

What’s that flapping sound? Could it be the sound of chickens coming home to roost? Or maybe it’s just the grating noise of secretary of state Antony Blinken rolling himself into a ball and, pressing his eyes shut and cupping hands over his ears, repeating, mantra-like, “please make it stop”?

I don’t know exactly what the noise is or whence it comes. But Thursday’s revelations from the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees about Blinken and Obama’s acting CIA director and all-round Democratic Mr. Fixit Michael Morell are certainly brewing up a storm. 

In their official letter of Thursday to Blinken, committee chairs Jim Jordan and Michael Turner reveal some extraordinary things about the saga of Hunter Biden’s “laptop from hell” and the full-court press on the part of the Democrats and their poodles in the media to bury the story just before the 2020 presidential election. 

Cast your mind back to October 2020. The New York Post published an amazing story about the contents of Hunter’s laptop. There were all the scabrous pictures of the future-first son taking drugs and cavorting with guns and prostitutes. The laptop was also chock-a-block with emails about business dealings involving various foreign actors and his father, Joe Biden, “the Big Guy.”

This was just a couple of weeks before the election. The story had to be suppressed — and it was. Twitter suspended the Post’s account, and the accounts of anyone who dared to write about the laptop. The rest of the social media establishment, in concert with the legacy media, followed suit, taking a vow of omertà on the subject.

But why? Why did they forsake the most explosive story of the year?

Largely because fifty-one former intelligence experts, from former CIA director and anti-Trump apparatchik John Brennan on down, had published an open letter in Politico denouncing the laptop as Russian disinformation. The story, they said, had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” Russia, they continued, was “trying to influence how Americans vote in this election.”

The world has known for sometime that that letter was poppycock, that the laptop was for real and that had the story been allowed to circulate, there was a very good chance that Donald Trump would have won beyond the margin of “fraud” in the 2020 election. 

But what we just learned from this new letter to Antony Blinken is that the response from those fifty-one esteemed former intelligence operatives was cooked up by Blinken, then a top consultant to the Biden campaign, and organized and drafted by veteran Dem operative Michael Morell.

In his sworn testimony to the committees, Morell admitted that he had two goals. One was to help Joe Biden in his presidential debates with Donald Trump. The other, related goal, was to help Joe Biden get elected. Quoth Jim Jordan: “You wanted to help the vice president why?” Answer: “Because I wanted him to win the election.”

Morell achieved both his goals. When Trump brought up the Post’s story about the laptop in the debate, Biden shot back that “there are fifty former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plant.” Delicious, isn’t it? Biden knew that Trump was right, just as he knew that that squadron of “former national intelligence folks” had been suborned by his own campaign to pen the false attestation about “Russian influence.”

Messrs. Jordan and Turner’s letter asks Antony Blinken to identify all the people involved in the conception, drafting and circulation of that weaponized morsel of disinformation signed by the former intelligence operatives as well any documents or communications regarding the statement. Blinken’s deadline for disgorging the material deadline is May 4. Stand by. 

I don’t know whether the chickens will be coming home to roost or will merely be strutting around the farmyard. If this were a serious country, these revelations would be grounds for impeachment of President Biden. Fortunately for him and the corrupt actors he supports (though unfortunately for the rest of the country), that “if” is likely to be like the “if” addressed by Philip II to the Spartans. “Submit to my demands,” said Philip, for “if I bring my armies into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people and level your city.” The Spartan reply was suitably laconic: “If.”