Blinken and the ‘made men’ of the Biden administration

 Secretary of State Antony Blinken would really, really prefer to talk about grain in Ukraine this week. But many people are less interested in what Blinken is doing as secretary of state than in what he did to become secretary of state. 

This week, Blinken was implicated in a political coverup that could well have made the difference in the 2020 election. According to the sworn testimony of former acting CIA Director Michael Morrell, Blinken – then a high-ranking Biden campaign official – was “the impetus” of the false claim that the Hunter Biden laptop story was really Russian disinformation. Morrell 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.”

Morrell further admitted that the Biden campaign “helped to strategize about the public release of the statement.”

Finally, he admitted that one of his goals was not just to warn about Russian influence but “to help then-Vice President Biden in the debate and to assist him in winning the election.”

Help it did. Biden claimed in a presidential debate that the laptop story was “garbage” and part of a “Russian plan.” Biden used the letter to say “nobody believes” that the laptop is real.

In reality, the letter was part of a political plan with the direct involvement of his campaign, but Biden never revealed their involvement. Indeed, over years of controversy surrounding this debunked letter, no one in the Biden campaign or White House (including Blinken) revealed their involvement.

Of course, the letter was all the media needed. Discussion of the laptop was blocked on social media, and virtually every major media outlet dismissed the story before the election. 

That was also all Biden needed to win a close election. The allegations that the Biden family had cashed in millions through influence peddling could have made the difference. It never happened, in part because of Blinken’s work. 

Once in power, Blinken was given one of the top Cabinet positions. He was now one of the “made” men of the administration.

He was not alone. The 2016 election was marred by false allegations of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Unlike the influence peddling allegations made against Biden, the media ran with those stories for years. It later turned out that the funding and distribution of the infamous Steele dossier originated with the Clinton campaign. The campaign, however, reportedly lied in denying any such funding until after the election. It was later sanctioned for hiding the funding as legal expenses.

Those involved in spreading this false story were rewarded handsomely. For example, the second collusion story planted in the media by the campaign concerned the Russian Alfa Bank. The campaign used key Clinton aide Jake Sullivan, who went public with the entirely false claim of a secret back channel between Moscow and the Trump campaign. 

Sullivan was also a “made” man who was later made Biden’s national security adviser. Others who were implicated in either the Steele dossier or Alfa Bank hoaxes also later found jobs in the administration. The Brookings Institution proved a virtual turnstile for these political operatives. 

Many signatories on the Russian disinformation letter continue to flourish. MSNBC analyst Jeremy Bash signed the letter and was put on the president’s Intelligence Advisory Board. As with Sullivan, it did not seem to matter that Bash had gotten one of the most important intelligence stories of the election wrong.

Former CIA head James Clapper was referenced by Biden on the letter and was also a spreader of the Russian collusion claims. Despite those scandals and a claim of perjury, CNN gave him a media contract.

They are all “made” men in the Beltway, but they could not have succeeded without a “made” media.

These false stories planted by the Clinton and Biden campaigns succeeded only because the media played an active and eager role. In any other country, this pattern would fit the model of a state media and propaganda effort. However, there was no need for a central ministry when the media quickly reinforced these narratives. This is a state media by consent rather than coercion. The Biden campaign knew that reporters would have little interest or curiosity in how the letter came about or the involvement of campaign operatives. 

If Republicans did not control the House of Representatives, the Morrell admission would never have occurred. The Democrats repeatedly blocked efforts to investigate this story and the influence peddling allegations. Even this week, some Democrats called it a “tabloid story.” 

Given the career paths of figures such as Blinken and Sullivan, there is a concern that other officials may see the value in “earning their bones” as “made” men and women. There is now a senior IRS career official who is seeking to disclose what he claims was special treatment given to Hunter Biden in the criminal investigation.

While the 51 former intelligence figures were eager to raise Russian disinformation claims before the election, most have become silent. After all, the letter served its purpose, as Morrell indicated, “to assist [Biden] in winning the election.” After the false stories planted before the 2016 and 2020 elections, the question is what is in store for 2024?

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/3963743-antony-blinken-and-the-made-men-of-the-biden-administration/

Canadian official says country ‘would work to provide’ access to abortion pill if banned in US

 The Canadian government “would work to provide” access to medical abortion drugs if it is banned in the U.S., an official said in a television interview Thursday.

Families Minister Karina Gould said Canada would assist Americans in getting access to abortion medication in line with its national laws if American law were to change.

“What concerns me … is where you see laws in states where they’re actually criminalizing women (who) cross state borders to access reproductive health care,” Gould said.

“And so, you know, we need to be very thoughtful about how we do this to make sure that we don’t further endanger, you know, American women who are seeking access to reproductive health care and services, as well as health-care providers,” she added.

On Friday, the Supreme Court paused a federal judge’s order to restrict access to the abortion pill mifepristone. The 5th Circuit Court is currently considering a case to prevent access to the drug after a Texas judge ruled that it should not be allowed.

Reproductive rights advocates say the original ruling, and questions over the drug’s legality, are actually more damaging to people who live in states where abortion is already legal.

“This judicial ping-pong game is impacting the accessibility of a safe, effective, decades-long approved medication and is causing chaos and confusion,” Carrie Flaxman, senior director, public policy litigation & law at Planned Parenthood, said during a recent briefing.

The battle over mifepristone is the latest in a series of efforts to reduce access to reproductive care, including abortions. The Supreme Court overturned the landmark case allowing abortions nationwide, Roe v. Wade, last summer.

Since that ruling, over a dozen states have made abortions illegal, while others have reacted by enshrining the right to abortion to access into their states’ laws or constitutions.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3964212-canadian-official-says-country-would-work-to-provide-access-to-abortion-pill-if-banned-in-us/

New homeless shelter may violate city, state housing code

 The city’s plans for a controversial “safe haven” homeless shelter on the Upper West Side recently drew heat from a pair of lefty pols — including a City Council member who originally gave the facility a hearty endorsement.

Many community members are outraged that the 108 residents of the shelter — slated to open this month — will not be required to undergo full criminal background checks even though it’s across the street from an elementary school.

In a letter to the city Department of Social Services, Councilwoman Gale Brewer and state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal warned that crowding 108 vagrants into a West 83rd Street single-room occupancy building may violate housing requirements.

The lawmakers requested DSS review the codes, given the plan to pack up to four adults in individual rooms.

According to the state’s Multiple Dwelling Code, no more than two adults are allowed to occupy a room for sleeping purposes. 

The facility will be operated by the nonprofit Breaking Ground.

Current plans for the West 83rd Street shelter include placing up to four residents in a single room together.

J.C. Rice

“There is no question that New York City needs more beds for individuals experiencing homelessness, but the planned four beds per room at the 83rd Street facility raises significant concerns,” the lawmakers wrote. 

The lawmakers noted that limiting the number of homeless occupying rooms to one or two individuals could actually help in bringing more people off the street, a sentiment echoed by neighborhood activist Melinda Thaler.

“People are reluctant to come off the street if they have to enter larger, multiple-dwelling rooms that regular shelters offer,” said Thaler, 60. “A safe haven [usually] offers a private room or a roommate.” 

Brewer originally cheered the shelter’s opening, telling attendees at a February Community Board 7 meeting that she had discussed it with neighboring business owners and school, and said residents at safe havens were “pretty low key.”

The councilwoman then began calling for the number of beds in the shelter to be at least halved, in addition to demanding greater community involvement.

“The goal is to get people off the street, not to maximize the number of people in the building,” she said in March after the meeting.

https://nypost.com/2023/04/22/new-homeless-shelter-may-violate-state-housing-code-pols/

NYC exposes its own folly on climate change

 City Comptroller Brad Lander no doubt thought he was helping the climate war (and scoring points with warriors) when he boasted of his “dashboard” on climate progress last week, in advance of Saturday’s celebration of Earth Day.

Instead, he wound up exposing the utter folly of New York’s pricey efforts to lower Earth’s temperature.

Start with Lander’s revelation that the city’s reliance on fossil fuels for power has grown since 2019 — from 75% to 89%.

That’s largely thanks to the closure of the Indian Point nuclear plant, which accounted for 25% of the city’s juice.

The city plans to make up for that by expanding solar, with 72 megawatts installed last year, putting Gotham on pace to meet its 2030 goal.

Yet that goal,1,000 MW, is just half of the 2,000 MW Indian Point could put out.

And just a fraction of the 13,000 MW the city needs.

Lander’s term for the goal, “modest,” is the understatement of the century. (And Indian Point didn’t need cloudless skies to generate power.)

There’s more: The city is “committed” to limiting its greenhouse-gas emissions to 12 metric tons a year, an 80% cut by 2050, the dashboard notes.

The recent increase is largely due to the closure of the Indian Point nuclear plant, which accounted for 25% of the city’s power.

AP

Yet over the decade since 2011, it brought them down by less than 4%, to 53.9 metric tons in 2021.

And added cuts will only get harder as low-hanging fruit vanishes.

Lander’s dashboard also brags of a $3.8 billion divestment from fossil fuels, in pursuit of “net zero greenhouse gas emissions,” by companies in the city’s pension funds by 2040.

Yet divesting from an entire economic sector will inevitably narrow the funds’ diversity, boost risks and preclude the opportunity for greater returns. (Remember: Taxpayers must make up any pension-fund shortfalls.)

And the greenies continue to demand ever more pain, including a push for all-electric buildings that’ll require vast infrastructure upgrades — and spell the end of gas stoves — without actually reducing emissions, since fossil fuels still generate the most electricity.

Meanwhile, the left’s Climate Change Superfund Act aims to make fossil-fuel companies pay for their past, perfectly legal business operations.

If it actually became law and survived court challenges, it might help cover the monster tab — as much as a half trillion dollars — of meeting the state’s emission goals.

Then again, New York consumers would get socked with hefty new costs as the firms pass along that charge.

And the big picture is all about futility: Even if the city and state somehow meet their goals (at enormous pain and expense), it won’t budge global temps one bit, especially as nations like China and India continue to increase their greenhouse-gas output.

Yet if the entire world stopped doing anything more to combat it, climate change would still have a negligible impact on worldwide GDP by 2100, per the UN’s own climate-change panel.

Lander’s inadvertent admission about the failures of the city’s climate agenda, in short, is just a case study of the futility of the entire global campaign.

https://nypost.com/2023/04/22/nyc-exposes-its-own-folly-on-climate-change/

Hochul ‘test-marketing’ a ban on all tobacco sales

 The pro-legal weed Hochul administration is quietly trying to fire up support for a complete ban on the sale of tobacco products in New York, The Post has learned.

The state Health Department commissioned a new survey aimed at gauging support for an all-out prohibition — despite Gov. Hochul’s failure to secure support from state legislators to include a ban on menthol cigarettes and other flavored tobacco products in the yet-to-be-approved state budget.

“What is your opinion about a policy that would end the sale of all tobacco products in New York within 10 years?” were among the questions asked last week in the “New York Local Opinion Leaders Survey,” examined by the Post.

Another asks: “What is your opinion about a policy that would ban the sale of all tobacco products to those born after a certain date? For example, those born after the year 2010 or later would never be sold tobacco.”

The poll also solicited input on whether there’s backing for other tobacco-related measures, including capping the number of retailers who can sell “products in a community” and prohibiting its sales near schools.

The survey, conducted by nonprofit research organization RTI International, was distributed to “community leaders” statewide, including “county legislators and county directors of public health,” according to an April 13 memo to prospective participants from Jennifer Lee, director of the Health Department’s Bureau of Tobacco Control. 

Hochul’s own budget proposal noted banning flavored tobacco products would cost the state $133 million in lost tax revenues this fiscal year, which began April 1.

Mike Groll/Office of Governor Kathy Hochul

It’s obvious the Health Department is “test marketing” potential new smoking policies and such surveys are typically funded by taxpayers but through private companies, think tanks, or political campaigns, an Albany insider said.

“An outright ban being considered … is all new territory,” the insider said. “And I’ve never seen anything like this where [the state] uses this kind of focus grouping, alliance building, momentum building.”

Kent Sopris, president of the New York Association of Convenience Store Owners, predicted a ban would put many stores out of business but wouldn’t stop tobacco use because smokers would just buy cigarettes out of state, online, or illegally on the black market.   

“I think it would be bizarre for the state to create another category of illegal product that could lead to more conflict between law enforcement and the community,” he said.  

And he said it was disingenuous of Hochul to kick off a public awareness campaign last week encouraging New Yorkers to buy regulated marijuana products at legalized cannabis dispensaries — considering the thousands of illegal pot shops that have sprung up since recreational cannabis use was legalized in 2021.

A New York State Department of Health Survey asks some county legislators and health officials if they’d back banning the sale of all tobacco products within the next decade.

Another question in the Health Department poll asks if New Yorkers would back banning tobacco sales to anyone born after 2010.

“If you are out there advocating for the expanded sale of retail cannabis that sells candied flavored options, how can you tell regulated legal convenience stores they can’t sell menthol cigarettes to adults?” Sopris fumed.

Hochul’s own budget proposal noted banning flavored tobacco products would cost the state $133 million in lost tax revenues this fiscal year, which began April 1 — and $255 million more in fiscal 2025.

Flavored products — including menthols — make up about 40% of all legal tobacco sales in New York, said Sopris.

Hochul’s office did not return messages, but Health Department spokesman Cort Ruddy said the questions asked in the survey “do not indicate whether the department supports or opposes the policies they highlight.”

Gov. Hochul is seeking to crack down on sales of tobacco statewide — all while promoting the sale of pot at authorized cannabis dispensaries.

for New York Post

Ruddy also said soliciting the opinion of local leaders “is crucial for effective public health,” adding the department has been conducting similar surveys on “tobacco, youth vaping, and other important topics for more than a decade.”

The department, however, couldn’t immediately provide evidence of earlier local leader polls focusing on banning all tobacco products.

Michael Davoli, senior government relations director for American Cancer Society’s New York-based Cancer Action Network, said the state has “a historic opportunity” to “prevent another generation of youth from getting addicted to deadly tobacco.”

https://nypost.com/2023/04/22/kathy-hochul-test-marketing-ban-on-all-ny-tobacco-sales/