The Biden administration’s linguistic jiu-jitsu
By: John Dietrich
Members of the Biden administration have mastered the art of concealing their activities from the public and Congress.
Just about everything is under investigation and, therefore, cannot be discussed.
Some questions are answered with easily misinterpreted meanings.
In a carefully worded letter, more than 50 former intelligence officials stated they were “deeply suspicious” that there was Russian influence in the New York Post stories published about Hunter Biden. Business Insider described the Post stories as “dubious.” The intel officers said they believe the stories about emails purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden have “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” They did not say it was Russian disinformation. However, it was worded in such a manner that it could easily be suggested that it was. This is exactly what Joe Biden and his supporters did.
During the Oct. 22, 2020, presidential debate, Biden said, “There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plan. They have said that this has all the characteristics — four, five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage.”
Two and a half weeks before the election, Former DNI James Clapper claimed, “To me, this is just classic textbook Soviet Russian tradecraft at work.”
Press secretary Jen Psaki tweeted, “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo dozens of former intel officials say.”
Virtually all Biden supporters and some Trump supporters accepted this interpretation of what these officials said. We now know without a doubt that the Hunter laptop was not Russian disinformation. The signers of this letter undoubtedly knew this at the time.
During a March 2021 congressional hearing in Minnesota, Democrat Senator Amy Klobuchar sympathized with FBI Director Christopher Wray, claiming, “There must be moments where you think if we could have known if we could have infiltrated this group or found out what they were doing. Do you have those moments?” Wray responded, “Absolutely … we aim to bat a thousand percent and to thwart every attack that is out there … you can be darn tootin’ that we are focused very, very hard on how we can get better sources, better information, better analysis, so that we can make sure that something like what happened on January 6 never happens again.”
This exchange had to have been rehearsed. It was too perfect. We are left with the impression that the FBI did not infiltrate these groups. Aw-shucks, in fact, we’re darn tootin’ sure the FBI is doing its best to infiltrate groups intent on violence. If only they could have infiltrated these groups or found out what they were doing.
Well, we now know that the FBI had infiltrated these groups. Former Capitol Hill Police Chief Steven Sund has said that, in addition to the paid informants, the FBI had at least 18 undercover agents in the crowd, plus an estimated 20 from the Department of Homeland Security. The Metropolitan Police also had undercover agents in the crowd. How many other government agencies had undercover agents in the crowd? So far, there has been no mention of the Peace Corps. The only question now is about how extensive was the government’s role in the violence.
FBI participation in the January 6 event is being questioned more frequently. During a Congressional hearing, Rep. Clay Higgins asked Wray, “Can you confirm that the FBI had that sort of engagement with your own agents embedded within the crowd on January 6?”
Wray responded, “If you are asking whether the violence at the Capitol on January 6 was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources or agents, the answer is emphatically no.”
After Higgins was going on to his next query, Wray interrupted repeating, “No. Not violence orchestrated by FBI sources or agents.” Wray wanted to emphasize the word “orchestrated.”
In all likelihood, the FBI did not, in fact, orchestrate the violence on January 6. Higgins’s next question should have been, “Well, who did orchestrate it?”
Of course, Wray’s response would have been that he could not discuss that.
This article (The Biden administration’s linguistic jiu-jitsu) is republished here under “Fair Use” (see the TLB disclaimer below article) with attribution to the articles author John Dietrich and website americanthinker.com.
TLB recommends that you visit the American Thinker site for more great articles and information.
About the Author: John Dietrich is a freelance writer and the author of The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy (Algora Publishing). He has a Master of Arts Degree in International Relations from St. Mary’s University. He is retired from the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Department of Homeland Security. He is featured on the BBC’s program “Things We Forgot to Remember:” Morgenthau Plan and Post-War Germany.
Also by this author (perspective from early 2021)
Click Here to Visit the TLBTalk.com Site
Welcome to the TLB Project Neighborhood
Stay tuned to …
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.