Former acting CIA director Michael Morell was recently asked under oath about the origins of the intel letter discrediting the Hunter Biden laptop story as possible Russian disinformation.
He testified under oath that a call from now-Secretary of State Antony Blinken “triggered” the creation of the letter, which was signed by 51 current and former members of the intelligence community.
When questioned further, he said, “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.”
“I wanted [Biden] to win the election,” he testified, according to a letter sent to Blinken by House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan and Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner.
This isn’t the first time this ex-CIA boss has stirred up hot-button issues in the lead-up to a presidential election, according to John Solomon and Nick Givas’s reporting in Just the News. In 2012, he edited official talking points about the deadly 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack to remove references to al-Qaeda. And in the summer of 2016, he was one of the first major figures to publicly claim Trump was a Russian asset in a New York Times op-ed.
In this episode of Kash’s Corner, we also take a look at Sen. Chuck Grassley’s recent allegations that the FBI falsely labeled information as Russian disinformation “to bury it”—and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s seeking to prevent Trump from speaking about the evidence in his case.
Interview trailer:
Watch the full interview: https://www.theepochtimes.com/kash-patel-how-an-ex-cia-boss-rigged-three-election-cycles-from-benghazi-to-russia-collusion-to-hunters-laptop_5228690.html
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Kash Patel: Hey everybody and welcome back to Kash’s Corner. Jan, what are we going to talk about this week?
Jan Jekielek: My goodness, do we ever have a lot to talk about this week? The big thing I want to talk about is Michael Morell and his recent disclosures under oath, and I have many questions for you about this. This is a big thing. We have to talk about Tucker Carlson leaving Fox. We’ll also talk about Senator Grassley saying the FBI has been using this moniker of Russian disinformation to shield the Biden family. He hasn’t provided any evidence yet, but he seems to have made good on everything else he said up to now. Finally, the Manhattan DA Bragg basically is saying that he wants to restrict some of the evidence from Trump’s side of the lawsuit. We got a lot.
Mr. Patel: We got a bunch, and for a lot of it, it seems all roads would lead back to Russiagate, but we’ll get there.
Mr. Jekielek: It does seem that way, doesn’t it? Let’s look at Tucker Carlson. This is something everybody’s been buzzing about for a few days now. You have an interesting theory. Tell me about that.
Mr. Patel: Look, I’m not on the inside. I don’t have any inside narrative or take, but I’ll just give you my thoughts on it. These are facts, whether they’re coincidence or not, we’ll leave for the audience. But the fact remains that Paul Ryan is on the board of Fox News Corp. and one of the largest voices at Fox News Corp.
The CEO is Rupert Murdoch’s son, Lachlan Murdoch. It’s no surprise that those two individuals who are in charge of Fox News have a heavy dislike of President Trump. I’m not saying that for them. They’ve said that publicly.
Take that fact and couple it with the coverage that you’ve seen Fox News undertake in the last year, which has been, in my opinion, a pivot away from all things President Trump. A guy like myself was on the Fox primetime shows on a near weekly basis, and has not been on a single Fox primetime show in nine months.
Yes, these could all be little coincidences along the way, but you can start adding those facts together, and you can then add on the removal of Tucker Carlson and the departure of Dan Bongino, two of the largest voices. You can call them pro-Trump or not, but there’s probably a better way to characterize them.
Maybe you can just look at their audiences who are very favorable of President Trump and his reelection status, and want to hear news that reflects that audience base. Tucker’s show was the largest news show in network news. Why would a news company who’s in news to make money rid itself of its number one money-making show?
There has been for some time at Fox News Corp, a pivot away from, again, however you want to use the verbiage, Donald Trump, MAGA, America First, to become a more, in their eyes, neutral media network. I’m not saying it’s goo