Secretary of State Antony Blinken sat down for an interview with Fox News Channel’s Benjamin Hall yesterday. Good for both of them — it might have been Hall’s first day back on the job from the devastating injuries he suffered covering the war in Ukraine and he had the temerity to ask Blinken an uncomfortable question or two. Blinken was nervously blinkin’ in response to Hall’s question about his putative role in soliciting the letter of the Deep State 51 from Michael Morell. Relying on the letter released by Congressmen Jim Jordan and Michael Turner, I wrote about Morell’s apparent testimony to the contrary in “The dirtiest trick.”
Secretary of State Antony Blinken says he had nothing to do with the letter calling Hunter Biden's laptop "Russian disinformation" because he doesn't "do politics" pic.twitter.com/duOzCaXOCP
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 2, 2023
We need to see Morell’s testimony in full on this point. However, the testimony appears flatly to contradict Blinken. The New York Post reviews Morell’s testimony in its story on Hall’s interview. I look to the Post on all laptop matters. So far as I can tell Hall did not follow up to clarify.
Moreover, we have some reason to doubt Blinken’s credibility. He declined to opine on whether the laptop was in fact Russian disinformation — on the ground that he doesn’t do politics. It’s a good line and should be true, but it wouldn’t be prudent to buy that one.
And Senator Ron Johnson recalls that Blinken testified in the course of his investigation of the Biden family business to being incommunicado with Hunter (apart from one personal meeting that Blinken recalled). The Examiner’s Jerry Dunleavy dredges up evidence to the contrary — from Hunter Biden’s laptop, of course — in “Blinken may have lied under oath about Hunter Biden email denials, records show.” It’s hard to keep up with this story and there is more to come.
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 2, 2023
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.