Spy Talk Blog has gone back on record now refuting earlier claims by RedState and others by saying that the United States government does not have Chinese Counter Intelligence Chief Dong Jingwei.
Spy Talk states that a U.S. government official reached out to them on Tuesday to state that the reports are "not accurate", and that they were "looking to correct the record".
What's curious about this isn't so much that Spy Talk is refuting the claim made by Red State and others, but how they construct their article. This will be a quick analysis of the last 40% or so of their article and why it fails the sniff test. I won't be getting in to the fact that they state that the US government does not have Dong Jingwei, that's for people with sources to discuss.
What I am looking at is the nature of the writing and the lack of apparent effort in the last bit of this article. The writing comes across almost as if they are trying to convince themselves of what they are saying, as much as the reader. They spend a bulk of this portion of the article grasping at straws and trying to parse out why they would have gotten such a super, duper scoop that no one else did, and why it happened as it did (the government reaching back out to them, not vice versa).
They offer a variety of reasons for this, none of which they sound too entirely sure of, and then state that when they asked the source why he said reached back out to Spy Talk his response was "that's more of a policy question." They bring in well trusted and valued Nicholas Eftimiades to comment on why he thinks the US government would have reached out to Spy Talk on such a sensitive issue. What they don't state is whether or not Eftimiades is simply going off the information they provided him about the source reaching back out, or if he was present for the event. If he was present for the event, then I would have expected them to have made this clear. But they don't state that. They simply bring him in to offer an opinion and some analysis on why Spy Talk may have gotten the scoop. And he answers honestly, but again, it doesn't sound like he was present at all for the conversation with the source and thus is only speaking based on what he has been told.
The article basically goes on to say that maybe they got the super, duper scoop because Biden is trying to smooth things over with Beijing as that relationship is currently in the crapper. They also offer some analysis from "longtime observers of the U.S.-China relations" but don't say who those individuals are. Totally anonymous. They offer another idea that maybe they did this because the right wing was attached to the issue. Clearly, no one inside the Beltway or CIA want's to be associated with the right wing; nasty peasants.
They then make the case that this totally shuts the issue down, makes all those on the right who thought this was a major win for the US look like rubes, and that it is all over. Nothing else to consider. It really doesn't come across as believable. Whoever crafted the article didnt start with the end in mind. They knew that in the 1st half they were going to make the point that the United States doesnt have the Chinese defector. But beyond that, it doesnt really appear like they thought this through. The rest just feels poorly cobbled together in an attempt to force legitimacy where there may not be any.
Outside of the article, there is a lot happening in the upper echelons of the CCP that suggest a high value Party member has defected:
1: Dong Jingwei disappeared from the Baidu Encyclopedia entry on the official website of the Ministry of National Security of the Communist Party of Chine
2: The Chinese Communist Party's official media has "refuted rumors" without being able to produce any photos or videos of Minister Dong Jingwei at an event they detailed in which State media was present. You would think they would have a photo or short video clip of the event and the headlining party member.
3: On June 8, President Xi Jingping repeatedly mentioned "loyalty" and "never rebellious against the party" during his inspection in Qinghai. On June 18, President Xi took Central Committee members to the Exhibition Hall of the History of the Party and made similar comments.
4: On June 19, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection published a headline article on former head of Special Branch, Gu Shunzhang, who surrendered to General Chiang Kai-shek. The article references "never betray the party" on four separate occasions.
Why Spy Talk published this is a move I can only see coming from members of the Borg, meaning beltway crowd working for beltway interests without having to be prodded by other members to do it. They just all kind of think the same and thus produced this piece to cover for the establishment. This article would and likely does reduce tensions between DC and Beijing if this defection isn't something the White House is prepared, or due to the complexities of Biden Family Chinese business dealings, can't turn into a public policy win. I think that if I had Minister Dong Jingwei in custody as the leading officer of this mission over at DIA, I would make sure to get him a couple minutes of camera time for the public sooner rather than later before whisking him off to long term protection. But then again, my son and his business partners didn't get in bed with bad business in China.
CulturalHusbandry, 1776/2021