AwesomeCapital

Saturday, April 22, 2023

New clues about 2020 campaign disinformation

There's still a lot we don't know about the events surrounding the appearance and suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop in the final weeks of the 2020 presidential campaign. Twitter, after the purchase by Elon Musk, revealed some key information about the role of the FBI and other government agencies in the effort to censor the laptop's contents. But there is much yet to discover.

Like: How did that statement from 51 former national security officials declaring that the laptop had "all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation" originate? In truth, the laptop was legitimately Biden's and revealed enormous amounts of information about his foreign business activities and the possible knowledge of his father, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden — and it wasn't part of a Russian operation.

National security officials in office at the time said no, there was no evidence that the laptop was a Russian operation. But the statement from the 51 former officials — James Clapper, Michael Hayden, Leon Panetta, John Brennan, Michael Morell, and many others — lent credibility to the entirely unfounded notion that the Russians were somehow behind the discovery of the Biden laptop. In fact, Hunter Biden, out of his mind on drugs, had simply left the laptop at a repair shop and forgotten what he had done. Still, the statement gave supporters of the Joe Biden campaign something to cite as "evidence" of alleged Russian involvement.

Now, we're learning more about who was behind that statement. And you won't be shocked to learn it was the Biden campaign. The House Judiciary Committee and Intelligence Committee are looking into the origins of the statement and have found that Antony Blinken, now the secretary of state but in 2020 an adviser to the Biden campaign, organized the letter, or at least had a role in organizing the letter, as part of the effort to quash the laptop news.

Michael Morell, a former deputy director and acting director of the CIA under President Barack Obama, actually wrote the statement. But the idea was not originally his. In an interview with the two House committees, Morell was asked how the statement came about. He said that on Oct. 17, 2020, three days after the laptop story appeared in the New York Post, Morell received a call from Blinken, then advising the Biden campaign. According to the committees, Blinken's call was "couched as simply gathering Morell's reaction to the Post story," but in fact, it "set in motion the events that led to the issuance of the public statement." That same day, Oct. 17, Blinken emailed Morell an article alleging that the laptop was a Russian operation. This is from the portion of Morell's testimony released by the committees:

Q: But, prior to [Secretary Blinken's] call, you — you did not have any intent to write this statement?

A: I did not.

Q: Okay. So his call triggered —

A: It did, yes.

Q: — that intent in you?

A: Yes. Absolutely.

A few days after the statement appeared, candidate Biden cited it in his defense when the laptop issue came up during the final debate between Biden and President Donald Trump. After the debate, Morell received a thank-you call from the chairman of the Biden campaign.

This is from House Republicans on the committees: "Morell also explained that the Biden campaign helped to strategize about the public release of the statement. Morell testified that he sent an email telling Nick Shapiro, former Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to the Director of the CIA John Brennan, that the Biden campaign wanted the statement to go to a particular reporter at the Washington Post first and that he should send the statement to the campaign when he sent the letter to the reporter."

The purpose of it all, of course, was to help Biden defeat Trump. Here is more from the committees' interview with Morell:

Q: What was the intent of the statement?

A: There were two intents. One intent was to share our concern with the American people that the Russians were playing on this issue; and two, it was [to] help Vice President Biden.

Q: You wanted to help the Vice President why?

A: Because I wanted him to win the election.

Q: You wanted him to win, that's why?

A: Yes, sir.

House Republican leaders want to know more about Blinken's role. This is how they framed a request for documents from Blinken: "Although the statement's signatories have an unquestioned right to free speech and free association — which we do not dispute — their reference to their national security credentials lent weight to the story and suggested access to specialized information unavailable to other Americans. This concerted effort to minimize and suppress public dissemination of the serious allegations about the Biden family was a grave disservice to all American citizens' informed participation in our democracy."

That is a serious matter, but it's also the sort of thing that Blinken and other figures in the investigation might ignore. It was a campaign, they might say. We were trying to win. To win, we wanted to kill the Hunter Biden laptop story. Most of the press was on our side and went along. So what?

But everyone should appreciate what the committees are doing because there is an intrinsic value in simply knowing what happened. When something big happens in public affairs, the public has a right to know how it came about. That's what journalism does, and in many cases, that is what congressional investigations do, too. So everyone should be thankful to the committees for helping us learn more about the events of October 2020. Hopefully, there will be more to come.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/new-clues-about-2020-campaign-disinformation

America's Sanctions Regime Is Driving Countries Away From The Dollar

America's sanctions regime is killing the dollar's viability as countries worldwide see firsthand the ability of the United States government to inflict pain on Russia.

It's just not Russia. Earlier this week, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned China not to deviate from the sanctions regime that she has personally supervised.

"It is essential that China and other countries do not provide Russia with material support or assistance with sanctions evasion. We will continue to make the position of the United States extremely clear to Beijing and companies in its jurisdiction. The consequences of any violations would be severe."

If America could target the world's mightiest powers, what would happen to smaller countries that attracted America's ire?

Administrations of both parties are guilty of weaponizing the dollar to further America's foreign policy goals. An international entity sanctioned by America is entirely at the mercy of America's bureaucrats since no judicial review is allowed.

The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Controls (OFAC) wields enormous power to block fund transfers to countries, groups, or individuals subject to American sanctions. In a 2021 paper, the Treasury reported that 9,421 sanctions designations were active, a 933% increase since 9/11, as American administrations have used dollarization as a primary diplomatic weapon.

President Biden in the Russia-Ukraine conflict has unleashed weapons usually reserved if America were attacked. That Treasury has gone after one party in a dispute between two nations is sending shock waves through the capitals of the Global South.

Since February 2022, Treasury alone has implemented over 2,500 sanctions on Russia, nearly a quarter of all sanctions against all countries in the last 21 years. They encompass numerous Russian banks, wealth management-related entities, individuals that play key roles in Russia's financial services sector, and any companies involved in Russia's military-industrial complex.

Over $300 billion of the Russian Central Bank's reserves at the Fed in New York and other Western financial institutions have been frozen. There's now talk that the West wants to seize Russia's dollar and gold assets to pay for Ukraine's reconstruction.

Treasury is also after companies that assist Russia's supply chain, targeting global companies that may even sell technologies classified as dual-use - such as a chip that could be used in a civilian air conditioner that may be repurposed for a drone.

Leaders of the Global South have been taken aback by the extraordinarily swift and intense nature of America's Russia sanctions. Brazil, India, China, South Africa, Malaysia, and Turkey have billions of dollars parked in U.S. Treasurys and other liquid assets because of the dollar's status as a "safe haven." But is the dollar really a safe haven? If any of these countries cross American ideals regarding rules maintaining the liberal international order, even in a third-party dispute, could America use its regime authority to cripple it?

The Chinese Yuan is becoming attractive to countries of the Global South because China, for nearly 70 years, has made it a foreign policy cornerstone to hew to the idea of "non-interference." China believes that countries should cooperate but not make judgments about each other regarding internal matters, preferring a more transactional approach instead. It is the exact opposite of America's foreign policy goals which are designed to change the behavior of sovereign nations to one that suits Western tastes, such as protecting human rights and territorial integrity.

Larry Summers, the former Treasury Secretary, tweeted recently about a comment he had heard from somebody in a developing country: "Look, I like your values better than I like China's. But the truth is, when we're engaged with the Chinese, we get an airport. And when we're engaged with you guys, we get a lecture."

The "non-interference" nations appreciate that it is easier to become friends when others don't judge you. The five BRICS countries - Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa - are a potent global force to counterbalance the West. They collectively represent 40% of the world's population and a combined GDP based on Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) greater than the G-7.

The BRICS Development Bank, founded in 2015 to aid infrastructure and sustainable development projects in member countries, has added three new countries - Bangladesh, UAE, and recently, Egypt, in February. Two countries with among the world's worst human rights records - Saudi Arabia and Iran - recently joined hands with China to bolster trade and establish diplomatic relations. Although they are not yet part of the BRICS combine, their move into the China fold should be worrisome to the United States.

When Brazil's President Lula met Chinese President Xi this week, he may have summarized the collective ideas of the Global South when he remarked: "Every night, I ask myself why all countries have to base their trades on the dollar."

https://tippinsights.com/americas-sanctions-regime-is-driving-countries-away-from-the-dollar/

The Pfizer board has lawyered up

Drs. Albert Bourla D.V.M. and Scott Gottlieb M.D. will both be represented by James P. Rouhandeh, a litigator last seen defending insulin for $500 a pen. Hey, somebody's got to do it!

ALEX BERENSON

APR 20, 2023

563

Albert Bourla, Pfizer’s chief executive and the World’s Favorite Veterinarian (TM), has found a lawyer for Berenson v Biden.

James P. Rouhandeh, the head of litigation at the 1,000-lawyer firm Davis Polk, yesterday notified James Lawrence, my lawyer, that he is representing Bourla.

Rouhandeh is also representing Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the senior Pfizer board member who successfully lobbied Twitter to ban me in August 2021. The fact Rouhandeh is working for both of them suggests Pfizer plans to take full responsibility for Gottlieb’s actions rather than saying he pushed Twitter on his own, but we will see.

Considered a top white-collar defense lawyer, Rouhandeh has represented Pfizer and Pfizer executives in prior cases.

He’s also worked for Morgan Stanley and has successfully defended the drugmaker Novo Nordisk over its massive insulin price hikes. (Though insulin was discovered in 1921 and has been commercially produced for almost a century, over the last 25 years, Novo Nordisk and other manufacturers have raised its price in the United States so much that some Americans have had to ration it.)

Despite Rouhandeh’s legal wins, last month Novo Nordisk cut insulin prices by 75 percent in the face of increasing anger about the immorality of forcing diabetes patients to ration a century-old drug necessary for their survival.

Still, Rouhandeh represented his client ably, and that’s what matters!

Rouhandeh becomes the second defense lawyer to become involved in the case, following Theodore Boutrous Jr., who wrote a scareee letter to James Lawrence on behalf of Andrew Slavitt last year.