They’re the supposed nonpartisan group of high spies looking for the very best curiosity of the nation.
However the 51 former “intelligence” officers who forged doubt on The Post’s Hunter Biden laptop tales in a public letter actually had been simply determined to get Joe Biden elected president. And greater than a 12 months later, even after their Deep State sabotage has been proven time and again to be a lie, they refuse to come clean with how they undermined an election.
The officers, together with CNN pundit {and professional} fabricator James Clapper — a person who was almost charged for perjury for mendacity to Congress — signed a letter saying that the laptop computer “has the traditional earmarks of a Russian data operation.”
What proof did they’ve? By their very own admission, none. “We have no idea if the emails . . . are real or not,” the letter stated. They’re simply “suspicious.” Why? As a result of they damage Biden’s marketing campaign, that’s proof sufficient.
Bear in mind this was written Oct. 19, 2020, 5 days after The Post published its first story. Neither Joe Biden nor Hunter Biden had denied the story, they merely deflected questions. Didn’t these safety consultants assume that if this was disinformation, the Biden marketing campaign would have yelled to the heavens that the story was false?
In the meantime, although the letter was marketed as being signed by individuals who labored “for presidents of each political events,” a majority of the officers had been Democrats.
Politico picked up the letter and ran the false headline “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officers say.” That headline continues to be on-line in the present day, regardless that the letter clearly says they don’t know if it’s Russian disinformation.
That headline was tweeted out by legions of Democrats, together with present White Home spokeswoman Jen Psaki, as proof that it was all a con. That tweet additionally continues to be up regardless of being confirmed false.
Thus pure hypothesis by a gaggle of biased officers grew to become gospel among the many media. This was “pretend information,” and could possibly be safely ignored.
Remember that Twitter already had banned The New York Publish a number of days earlier than. The rationale was that this was “hacked supplies,” regardless that it wasn’t — and Twitter had no proof to assume it was. A Fb official, in the meantime, stated it wasn’t going to permit the sharing of The Publish’s story till it was “truth checked” by a 3rd social gathering — a verify that by no means occurred.
Thus, Huge Tech, former authorities officers, and the media conspired collectively to bury a narrative.
No, not simply bury — create a false narrative that flipped the script to make Joe Biden the sufferer of a conspiracy.
In brief, they peddled on-line disinformation to sway an election.
Nobody really proved The Post’s reporting was incorrect. Media retailers confirmed up on the doorstep of the computer repairman who had gotten the laptop computer, and he confirmed it. Individuals who exchanged e-mails with Hunter Biden attested to their accuracy within the days and weeks that adopted.
Solely after the election was safely over did Hunter tacitly admit the laptop computer was his. Final 12 months, a Politico reporter confirmed that the laptop computer’s supplies had been actual. And now, the coup de grace: The Occasions stated it’s “authenticated” material from the laptop computer.
There have been no penalties. Twitter and Fb nonetheless censor data based mostly on political bias, and Congress takes no motion. Lots of the letter signers proceed for use as “consultants” by the media. Clapper, for example, spent years on CNN calling Donald Trump a “Russian asset,” a lie invented and fed by political operatives of Hillary Clinton. He’s nonetheless there. Guess accuracy shouldn’t be a situation of employment.
Do the officers who tried to flip the 2020 election really feel any remorse for his or her actions? The Publish reached out to those that signed the letter. Most would reply the query. Just a few doubled-down, together with Clapper. No regret. No disgrace. And no apologies:
Mike Hayden, former CIA director, now analyst for CNN: Didn’t reply.
Jim Clapper, former director of nationwide intelligence, now CNN pundit: “Sure, I stand by the assertion made AT THE TIME, and would name consideration to its fifth paragraph. I believe sounding such a cautionary word AT THE TIME was applicable.”
Leon Panetta, former CIA director and protection secretary, now runs a public coverage institute at California State College: Declined remark.
John Brennan, former CIA director, now analyst for NBC and MSNBC: Didn’t reply.
Thomas Fingar, former Nationwide Intelligence Council chair, now teaches at Stanford College: Didn’t reply.
Rick Ledgett, former Nationwide Safety Company deputy director, now a director at M&T Financial institution: Didn’t reply.
John McLaughlin, former CIA performing director, now teaches at Johns Hopkins College: Didn’t reply.
Michael Morell, former CIA performing director, now at George Mason College: Didn’t reply.
Mike Vickers, former protection undersecretary for intelligence, now on board of BAE Programs: Didn’t reply.
Doug Smart, former Protection Intelligence Company deputy director, teaches at College of New Mexico: Didn’t reply.
Nick Rasmussen, former Nationwide Counterterrorism Middle director, now government director, International Web Discussion board to Counter Terrorism: Didn’t reply.
Russ Travers, former Nationwide Counterterrorism Middle performing director: “The letter explicitly said that we didn’t know if the emails had been real, however that we had been involved about Russian disinformation efforts. I spent 25 years as a Soviet/Russian analyst. Given the context of what the Russians had been doing on the time (and proceed to do — Ukraine being simply the most recent instance), I thought-about the cautionary warning to be prudent.”
Andy Liepman, former Nationwide Counterterrorism Middle deputy director: “So far as I do know I do [stand by the statement] however I’m sort of busy proper now.”
John Moseman, former CIA chief of employees: Didn’t reply.
Larry Pfeiffer, former CIA chief of employees, now senior advisor to The Chertoff Group:
Didn’t reply.
Jeremy Bash, former CIA chief of employees, now analyst for NBC and MSNBC: Didn’t reply.
Rodney Snyder, former CIA chief of employees: Didn’t reply.
Glenn Gerstell, former Nationwide Safety Company common counsel: Didn’t reply.
David Priess, former CIA analyst and supervisor: “Thanks for reaching out. I’ve no additional remark right now.”
Pam Purcilly, former CIA deputy director of study: Didn’t reply.
Marc Polymeropoulos, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t reply.
Chris Savos, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t reply.
John Tullius, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t reply.
David A. Vanell, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t reply.
Kristin Wooden, former CIA senior intelligence officer, now non-resident fellow, Harvard: Didn’t reply.
David Buckley, former CIA inspector common: Didn’t reply.
Nada Bakos, former CIA analyst and concentrating on officer, now senior fellow, Overseas Coverage Analysis Institute: Didn’t reply.
Patty Brandmaier, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t reply.
James B. Bruce, former CIA senior intelligence workplace: Didn’t reply.
David Cariens, former CIA intelligence analyst: Didn’t reply.
Janice Cariens, former CIA operational help officer: Didn’t reply.
Paul Kolbe, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t reply.
Peter Corsell, former CIA analyst: Didn’t reply.
Brett Davis, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t reply.
Roger Zane George, former nationwide intelligence officer: Didn’t reply.
Steven L. Corridor, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t reply.
Kent Harrington, former nationwide intelligence officer: Didn’t reply.
Don Hepburn, former nationwide safety government, now president of Boanerges Options LLC: “My place has not modified any. I consider the Russians made an enormous effort to change the course of the election . . . The Russians are masters of mixing fact and fiction and making one thing really feel extremely actual when it’s not. Nothing I’ve seen actually adjustments my opinion. I can’t let you know what half is actual and what half is pretend, however the thesis nonetheless stands for me, that it was a media affect hit job.”
Timothy D. Kilbourn, former dean of CIA’s Kent College of Intelligence Evaluation: Didn’t reply.
Ron Marks, former CIA officer: Didn’t reply.
Jonna Hiestand Mendez, former CIA technical operations officer, now on board of the Worldwide Spy Museum: “I don’t have any remark. I would want just a little extra data.”
Emile Nakhleh, former director of CIA’s Political Islam Strategic Evaluation Program, now at College of New Mexico: “I’ve not seen any data since then that may alter the choice behind signing the letter. That’s all I can go into. The entire difficulty was extremely politicized and I don’t need to cope with that. I nonetheless stand by that letter.”
Gerald A. O’Shea, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t reply.
Nick Shapiro, former CIA deputy chief of employees and senior adviser to the director: Didn’t reply.
John Sipher, former CIA senior operations officer: Declined to remark.
Stephen Slick, former Nationwide Safety Council senior director for intelligence applications:
Didn’t reply.
Cynthia Strand, former CIA deputy assistant director for world points: Didn’t reply.
Greg Tarbell, former CIA deputy government director: Didn’t reply.
David Terry, former Nationwide Intelligence Assortment Board chairman: Couldn’t be reached.
Greg Treverton, former Nationwide Intelligence Council chair, now senior adviser on the Middle for Strategic and Worldwide Research: “I’ll cross. I haven’t adopted the case not too long ago.”
Winston Wiley, former CIA director of study: Couldn’t be reached.
