Bret Baier and his millions of listeners could hardly believe their ears last week when Leon Panetta answered Baier’s questions about the letter signed by 51 former “intelligence” bigwigs claiming the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.
Panetta is a former secretary of defense, director of the CIA, White House chief of staff, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and representative from California. And, clearly, a hard-core Democrat — willing to lie, and lie, and lie (see below) for the team.
While the American public was misinformed about Hunter Biden’s laptop in a 2020 letter signed by former intelligence officials – who used their job titles to add credibility to their claims – some of them have since landed plum jobs, including working with the federal government.
Just weeks before the 2020 presidential election, 51 ex-high ranking intelligence officials signed a letter insinuating the Hunter Biden laptop was “Russian disinformation” after The New York Post reported on the laptop days earlier. The Post report mentioned how Hunter had abandoned his laptop at a Delaware computer repair shop and had emails regarding his business dealings.
A federal judge denied the Biden administration’s attempt to pause an injunction that bars federal officials from communicating with social media companies for the purposes of censoring protected speech on Monday.
The Biden administration appealed Western District of Louisiana Judge Terry A. Doughty’s July 4 injunction on Wednesday, also requesting an emergency order to pause the injunction while the appeal is pending on Thursday night. Doughty denied the administration’s emergency order Monday, finding that plaintiffs would likely succeed in proving the government colluded with social media companies “to engage in viewpoint-based suppression of protected free speech.”
A pressure campaign to get communist China energy executives to pay money. Classified memos improperly stored in an insecure garage, An FBI informant’s allegation of bribery in Ukraine. A false claim of Russian disinformation to sway an election.
The swell of scandalous evidence engulfing Joe Biden’s family right now is raising a tantalizing question: if he weren’t president could he still get a security clearance if he applied for a job at the CIA or FBI?
If House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer’s sleuthing turns out to be right, the FBI harbored a deep, dark secret through the first Trump impeachment, the Hunter Biden laptop saga and the 2020 election fury. The secret: that a validated and well-paid informant raised concerns all the way back in 2017 that Joe Biden was involved in a $5 million bribery scheme involving Ukraine.
The question emerging now is did America’s most famous crime-fighting agency deep-six the allegation or dismiss it as “Russian disinformation” without thoroughly probing it.
The FBI travels to Capitol Hill on Monday to show House Oversight and Accountability Committee Chairman James Comer a confidential informant memo from summer 2020 alleging that Joe Biden was involved in a foreign bribery scheme, but the contents won’t be a surprise to Republicans. Both Comer and Sen. Chuck Grassley have already read the memo.
The larger question for Teams Comer and Grassley is whether the FBI sidelined the allegation of a $5 million bribery involving U.S. policy – which came from a confidential human source with a trusted track record – during the height of the 2020 election.
Neil W. McCabe, the national political editor of The Star News Network, interviewed veteran Washington journalist John Solomon, who is now the founder and editor-in-chief of “Just the News” about his coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop.
After its CEO suggested the now-infamous Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian Russian disinformation, NewsGuard, the self-styled arbiter of internet truth, is not backing down.
“My personal opinion is there’s a high likelihood this story is a hoax, maybe even a hoax perpetrated by the Russians again,” NewsGuard CEO Steve Brill said on CNBC just before the 2020 presidential election.
If you watched HBO’s recent docudrama about the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, you may have been struck by the historic connection to the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan. The epilogue posited the theory that the need for helicopters to mitigate the nuclear disaster caused the Russians to pull the attack helicopters from Afghanistan, making the already pointless war impossible to continue. So in 1988, the Soviets cut their losses and withdrew from Afghanistan.
The Afghan rebels did not seize control of Afghanistan until 1992. But the 1988 withdrawal also played a huge role in the loss of legitimacy for the Soviet system itself. The apparent juggernaut wielded terrifying power at its borders but remained frail and vulnerable to collapse from within. The very idea that the great Soviet evil empire could fail set off a series of dominoes that led to its collapse. The Afghan war, the struggling economy, and the Chernobyl disaster all combined to reveal the wise and powerful leaders in Moscow as incompetent despots.
More than 30 years later, American planners may have felt they had years or at least months during which residual civilians could make an orderly departure from Afghanistan as needed. The Soviet puppet government lasted almost four years (ironically, longer than the Soviet Union continued to exist), so why wouldn’t an American-sponsored government be able to hold on at least that long? The American planners probably believed that they were prolonging the longevity of the puppet regime by leaving nearly $80 billion in military equipment in the hands of the American-aligned Afghan government.