Why The Letter from 51 Senior Intelligence Officials About Hunter Biden’s Laptop Was Always a Made Up
Executive Summary
- 51 ex-senior intelligence officials made false claims about Hunter Biden’s laptop being Russian disinformation.
- We analyze this letter.
Introduction
Information has come out from the Hunter Biden laptop, explained in the following video.
It appears that Hunter essentially is a shakedown specialist. You need to pay him to get Joe to do this or that. $3.5 million from the Chinese, the Burisma board, and gifts from worldwide. Life is one eternal party for Hunter Biden filled with cocaine, alcohol, prostitutes, and payoffs disguised as “perfectly normal.”
Analysis of The Letter Signed by the 51 Ex Senior Intelligence Officials
The “Biden Laptop Letter” is routinely referred to by the media but rarely published or analyzed in depth. So that is what I will do now.
The Introduction
Public Statement on the Hunter Biden Emails October 19, 2020
We are all individuals who devoted significant portions of our lives to national security. Some of us served in senior positions in policy departments and agencies, and some of us served in senior positions in the Intelligence Community. Some of us were political appointees, and some were career officials. Many of us worked for presidents of both political parties. We are all also individuals who see Russia as one of our nation’s primary adversaries. All of us have an understanding of the wide range of Russian overt and covert activities that undermine US national security, with some of us knowing Russian behavior intimately, as we worked to defend our nation against it for a career. A few of us worked against Russian information operations in the United States in the last several years. – Politico
Belief Statement
Perhaps most important, each of us believes deeply that American citizens should determine the outcome of elections, not foreign governments. All of us agree with the founding fathers’ concern about the damage that foreign interference in our politics can do to our democracy. – Politico
There are a few problems with this paragraph.
First, does anyone US citizen think that foreign governments should determine the outcome of elections? This letter makes it sound like a unique position. I would say that I don’t want US intelligence officials determining the outcome of elections. However, that is to some degree what this letter did by providing cover to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Secondly, the US is not a democracy; it is categorized as a republic, and the term democracy does not appear anywhere in the constitution. Secondly, elites use enormous amounts of money to influence elections with high degrees of success. The term democracy is primarily promulgated by elites who seek to whitewash what is a plutocracy.
This video shows the results of a study that found a near-zero relationship between what the US public wants to be legislation and what is passed as legislation. Therefore, there is no area where the US political system can say to be democratic or a democracy.
This means that this letter states that it seeks to protect something that does not exist.
Classic Earmarks of a Russian Information Operation?
It is for all these reasons that we write to say that the arrival on the US political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his time serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation. We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.
That is a fragile claim. It means that these 51 senior ex-intelligence officials have no evidence to provide. So why was this letter written then? The letter influenced the coverage of the laptop. However, there appears to be nothing to it.
If Right?
If we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this. There are a number of factors that make us suspicious of Russian involvement. Such an operation would be consistent with Russian objectives, as outlined publicly and recently by the Intelligence Community, to create political chaos in the United States and to deepen political divisions here but also to undermine the candidacy of former Vice President Biden and thereby help the candidacy of President Trump. For the Russians at this point, with Trump down in the polls, there is incentive for Moscow to pull out the stops to do anything possible to help Trump win and/or to weaken Biden should he win. A “laptop op” fits the bill, as the publication of the emails are clearly designed to discredit Biden.
If fake emails were created, they would be straightforward to verify and contradict. And this paragraph leaves out that there are more than just emails on the laptop and that the laptop is easily demonstrated to belong to Hunter Biden. All of these details are ignored by this paragraph.
This contains projection that breaches into pure conjecture and is not based on any evidence. It also uses the deceptive IF, to then launch accusations. However, what if they are wrong, which all 51 of them turned out to be — then they are influencing the election and doing so without evidence. How is that worse than a foreign government influencing an election? This scenario is never acknowledged anywhere in the letter.
Consistent With Key Russian Methods?
Such an operation would be consistent with some of the key methods Russia has used in its now multi-year operation to interfere in our democracy – the hacking (via cyber operations) and the dumping of accurate information or the distribution of inaccurate or misinformation. Russia did both of these during the 2016 presidential election – judgments shared by the US Intelligence Community, the investigation into Russian activities by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and the entirety (all Republicans and Democrats) on the current Senate Intelligence Committee.
This is false. And it means that the authors of this letter are Russiagaters. This requires a sequel into what was Russiagate.
The Russiagate Hoax
This is called Russiagate, and it has been thoroughly discredited. It was concocted by Hillary Clinton to explain her loss to Trump and the emails that exposed that the DNC discriminated against Bernie Sanders and handed her the nomination. The Democrats never disputed the email’s authenticity but made up a story that they were hacked by the Russians. This part of the story turned out to be false, as digital evidence indicates the emails were taken from a thumb drive, which means it was most likely an inside job at the DNC. It is now referred to as the Russiagate Hoax. However, this has not stopped CNN from referring to Russia’s meddling in US elections.
Russiagate is a joke, and this means after its creation, Russiagate is used in the Mother Jones article to discredit a true story and a story that could have been verified in just a few hours.
After two years, Mueller came up with nothing that demonstrated Russian interference in the election. And when testifying, he was no longer in possession of his faculties. How a person who should be in an assisted living facility could be leading such an investigation is another question. As soon as Meuller testified and it was apparent that he was just a broken and mentally disabled old man, the establishment media covered up his testimony by not giving it any coverage.
I was not the only person to observe Meuller’s dementia.
Not only was Bob Mueller stuttering, but during the entire hearing he had a blank stare on his face and was seen looking into space multiple times as if he was having a difficult time comprehending questions from lawmakers.
Nearly every single time Mueller was asked a question by a Republican, he paused with confusion and had to ask for the question to be repeated and clarified.
In one very bizarre part of the hearing, Rep. Louie Gohmert asked Mueller:
“Who wrote your comments at the last DOJ presser?”
Mueller replied, saying, “I’m not going to comment on that.”
Gohmert replied by saying, “I got it, you didn’t write them.”
Mueller looked confused and didn’t challenge Gohmert’s claims that Mueller didn’t even write his own statements that he delivered at a press conference regarding his report. Mueller’s response is concerning given that his report has consumed the focus and energy of the country and the mainstream media for the last two years.
If Bob Mueller truly does have dementia, then his testimony is not valid.
One of the most striking giveaways that Mueller may be suffering from dementia was when he was questioned by Rep. Steve Chabot about Fusion GPS, and he replied that he did not know what it was. However, anybody who has been following the Russia conspiracy fiasco and the Mueller investigation over the last two years knows that Fusion GPS is a key part to the investigation.
Despite these obvious signs, the mainstream media has not uttered a single word during the hearing regarding the obvious fact that Mueller is unwell. – Loomered
Mueller had a long history of lying, going back decades where he helped support the idea that Saddam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction. The idea that the former head of the FBI was anything more than a politician and not a reliable source was a construction of the Democrat-aligned media.
The fact that the letter pushes the Russiagate Hoax by itself undermines the letter. However, let us continue the analysis of the letter.
Burisma Emails From Hunter Biden Were Collected by Russia for Insertion Into Hunter Biden’s Laptop?
Such an operation is also consistent with several data points. The Russians, according to media reports and cybersecurity experts, targeted Burisma late last year for cyber collection and gained access to its emails. And Ukrainian politician and businessman Adriy Derkach, identified and sanctioned by the US Treasury Department for being a 10-year Russian agent interfering in the 2020 election, passed purported materials on Burisma and Hunter Biden to Giuliani.
Wait one second. Is the claim that Russia inserted authentic emails that they hacked from Burisma servers on Hunter Biden’s laptop? So the point was to insert them on a laptop and then send the laptop to Giuliana? So then the assertion is that the laptop was fake, but the emails were real? Or the emails were doctored by Russian intelligence?
Why do this? Why not just send the emails to Wikileaks, and allow them to disseminate them? If they show corruption then the damage would be done. If one has authentic and incriminating emails, it is unnecessary to plant them on the laptop. So this story does not make sense.
However, Hunter Biden being on the Burisma board and his salary show clear evidence of influence peddling. Do the 51 ex-senior intelligence officials have anything to say about that? They do not.
Giulian is Compromised by Russian Intelligence?
Our view that the Russians are involved in the Hunter Biden email issue is consistent with two other significant data points as well. According to the Washington Post, citing four sources, “U.S. intelligence agencies warned the White House last year that Giuliani was the target of an influence operation by Russian intelligence.”
That seems like the most substantial information presented so far. But that is certainly no reason to suppress analyzing the information on the laptop. Furthermore, recall that Trump had a longstanding feud with US intelligence. Therefore, they were very supportive of Biden replacing Trump as Trump had pushed back on doing what the US defense establishment wanted. This point is entirely left out of this part of the letter.
FBI Has Opened an Investigation?
In addition, media reports say that the FBI has now opened an investigation into Russian involvement in this case. According to USA Today, “…federal authorities are investigating whether the material supplied to the New York Post by Rudy Giuliani…is part of a smoke bomb of disinformation pushed by Russia.” We do not know whether these press reports are accurate, but they do suggest concern within Executive Branch departments and agencies that mirrors ours. It is high time that Russia stops interfering in our democracy.
Ok, but again let’s have the FBI complete their investigation. However, it takes very little time to review the laptop’s contents and to conclude, this is highly unlikely.
The letter concludes by again bringing up the Russiagate hoax and then using the inappropriate term of democracy.
Someone Asks The 51 Senior Intelligence Officials What They Think Now That the Laptop Has Been Verified
The New York Post reached out to all 51 of these individuals to ask them if they still stood by the statements after The New York Times verified Hunter Biden’s Laptop.
Mike Hayden, former CIA director, now analyst for CNN: Didn’t respond.
Jim Clapper, former director of national intelligence, now CNN pundit: “Yes, I stand by the statement made AT THE TIME, and would call attention to its 5th paragraph. I think sounding such a cautionary note AT THE TIME was appropriate.”
Leon Panetta, former CIA director and defense secretary, now runs a public policy institute at California State University: Declined comment.
John Brennan, former CIA director, now analyst for NBC and MSNBC: Didn’t respond.
Thomas Fingar, former National Intelligence Council chair, now teaches at Stanford University: Didn’t respond.
Rick Ledgett, former National Security Agency deputy director, now a director at M&T Bank: Didn’t respond.
John McLaughlin, former CIA acting director, now teaches at Johns Hopkins University: Didn’t respond.
Michael Morell, former CIA acting director, now at George Mason University: Didn’t respond.
Mike Vickers, former defense undersecretary for intelligence, now on board of BAE Systems: Didn’t respond.
Doug Wise, former Defense Intelligence Agency deputy director, teaches at University of New Mexico: Didn’t respond.
Nick Rasmussen, former National Counterterrorism Center director, now executive director, Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism: Didn’t respond.
Russ Travers, former National Counterterrorism Center acting director: “The letter explicitly stated that we didn’t know if the emails were genuine, but that we were concerned about Russian disinformation efforts. I spent 25 years as a Soviet/Russian analyst. Given the context of what the Russians were doing at the time (and continue to do — Ukraine being just the latest example), I considered the cautionary warning to be prudent.”
I don’t think this comment is accurate. This quote says, “they did not know if the emails were genuine.” However, that is not the same as saying the laptop appears to be Russian disinformation. Now the invasion of Ukraine is being used by Travers as a reason to think the Russians created the laptop? There is an issue with both Bidens and the media exaggerating what the letter signed by 51 senior intelligence officials said, as is explained in the following quotation.
In one debate with then-President Donald Trump, Joe Biden suggested that the laptop data and story was part of a “Russian plan,” adding that “there are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what [Trump’s] accusing me of is a Russian plan.” – The Washington Standard
The list continues.
Andy Liepman, former National Counterterrorism Center deputy director: “As far as I know I do [stand by the statement] but I’m kind of busy right now.”
Andy Liepman does not appear to know if he does or does not stand by his statement. Perhaps he should confer with himself. And naturally, when he is asked about something where he was wrong, he is busy. However, he was not so busy when asked to sign a letter stating the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.
The list continues.
John Moseman, former CIA chief of staff: Didn’t respond.
Larry Pfeiffer, former CIA chief of staff, now senior advisor to The Chertoff Group:
Didn’t respond.Jeremy Bash, former CIA chief of staff, now analyst for NBC and MSNBC: Didn’t respond.
Why would Jeremy Bash not respond? He works for NBC and MSNBC, and he is a member of the media. Shouldn’t he come on to NBC and MSNBC and explain why he was wrong?
The list continues.
Rodney Snyder, former CIA chief of staff: Didn’t respond.
Glenn Gerstell, former National Security Agency general counsel: Didn’t respond.
David Priess, former CIA analyst and manager: “Thank you for reaching out. I have no further comment at this time.”
Pam Purcilly, former CIA deputy director of analysis: Didn’t respond.
Marc Polymeropoulos, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.
Chris Savos, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.
John Tullius, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.
David A. Vanell, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.
Kristin Wood, former CIA senior intelligence officer, now non-resident fellow, Harvard: Didn’t respond.
David Buckley, former CIA inspector general: Didn’t respond.
Nada Bakos, former CIA analyst and targeting officer, now senior fellow, Foreign Policy Research Institute: Didn’t respond.
Patty Brandmaier, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.
James B. Bruce, former CIA senior intelligence office: Didn’t respond.
David Cariens, former CIA intelligence analyst: Didn’t respond.
Janice Cariens, former CIA operational support officer: Didn’t respond.
Paul Kolbe, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.
Peter Corsell, former CIA analyst: Didn’t respond.
Brett Davis, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.
Roger Zane George, former national intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.
Steven L. Hall, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.
Kent Harrington, former national intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.
Don Hepburn, former national security executive, now president of Boanerges Solutions LLC: “My position has not changed any. I believe the Russians made a huge effort to alter the course of the election . . . The Russians are masters of blending truth and fiction and making something feel incredibly real when it’s not. Nothing I have seen really changes my opinion. I can’t tell you what part is real and what part is fake, but the thesis still stands for me, that it was a media influence hit job.”
How is that possible? The laptop’s contents have been proven to be Hunter Biden’s beyond a shadow of a doubt. This seems to meet the definition of a person who does not rely on evidence. What Don Hepburn accused the Russians of doing is what he does.
The list continues.
Timothy D. Kilbourn, former dean of CIA’s Kent School of Intelligence Analysis: Didn’t respond.
Ron Marks, former CIA officer: Didn’t respond.
Jonna Hiestand Mendez, former CIA technical operations officer, now on board of the International Spy Museum: “I don’t have any comment. I would need a little more information.”
But Jonna did not need more information to sign the letter stating that the laptop was part of a Russian disinformation campaign. He must be aware that the laptop and its contents are widely acknowledged as authentic.
The list continues.
Emile Nakhleh, former director of CIA’s Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program, now at University of New Mexico: “I have not seen any information since then that would alter the decision behind signing the letter. That’s all I can go into. The whole issue was highly politicized and I don’t want to deal with that. I still stand by that letter.”
Hasn’t Emile seen any information since then? Does Emile live in a cave?
It is also curious that Emile now finds the issue highly politicized but was still willing to sign the letter on what seems to have been zero knowledge. However, now that his false claim has been disproven, she “does not want to deal with that.” However, she still stands by the letter.
The list continues.
Gerald A. O’Shea, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.
Nick Shapiro, former CIA deputy chief of staff and senior adviser to the director: Didn’t respond.
John Sipher, former CIA senior operations officer: Declined to comment.
Stephen Slick, former National Security Council senior director for intelligence programs:
Didn’t respond.Cynthia Strand, former CIA deputy assistant director for global issues: Didn’t respond.
Greg Tarbell, former CIA deputy executive director: Didn’t respond.
David Terry, former National Intelligence Collection Board chairman: Couldn’t be reached.
Greg Treverton, former National Intelligence Council chair, now senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies: “I’ll pass. I haven’t followed the case recently.”
Really. Greg Treverton is unaware that the laptop was verified by the New York Times?
Winston Wiley, former CIA director of analysis: Couldn’t be reached. – New York Post
Why did such a high percentage of these senior ex-intelligence officials not respond? That seems a bit dishonest, and it also means that these people will say one thing but, when proven wrong, will not own up to it or take any responsibility.
What if 52 senior intelligence officials are just 51 liars with a political objective to get Joe Biden elected? The reality is that the US intelligence community will tell any lie to achieve its objectives.
Conclusion
The letter from 51 ex-senior intelligence officials is conjecture. It also seems incredibly lazy. These officials went to the effort to sign a letter saying they were suspicious of the laptop’s authenticity but then put no effort into verifying it. That is a strange lack of interest in getting to what was true. This sounds like a group asking the public not to look at something that they have also not looked at because they suspect that item may not be true.
The degree to which the 51 ex-senior intelligence officials were lying and just partisan hacks were illustrated plainly once they were asked if they stood by the letter after the laptop was verified. Most of them refused to comment, and the ones that did comment provided nonsensical answers. The claim was made that the letter was partisan, but most of the officials were affiliated with the Democrats. The reality is that Trump was not going along with the intelligence community, and that has repercussions, as the intelligence community thinks they should have the right to select the politicians, not just in other countries, but in the US as well.