CIA hit with lawsuit over Hunter Laptop

[Always in His Presence]

CIA hit with lawsuit over letter claiming Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation​

Below is from NYPost article that cannot be linked to because it shows Hunter nude holding an illegally purchased gun.​

A watchdog group said Thursday it is suing to get CIA records that could shed light on the process used by the intelligence agency to “clear” a letter falsely claiming that emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop were Russian disinformation.​

​

Judicial Watch, which filed the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, is seeking all records and communications of the spy agency’s Prepublication Classification Review Board regarding an Oct. 19, 2020, email request made by former CIA Acting Director Mike Morell.​

​

Morell wrote to the agency asking for the review board to “clear” a letter drafted by him and signed by 51 former intelligence community officials characterizing The Post’s bombshell Hunter Biden laptop story as having “all the earmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign.”​

 

[seeking.IAM]

Getting information out of a spy agency: Good luck with that.

 

[SimplyMe]

I suspect this will get tossed quickly, since the CIA had nothing to do with the letter -- as the letter makes clear. Part of the key is, as the OP, the letter being signed by FORMER intelligence agents. On top of that, the letter states, "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." (emphasis mine)

They clearly state their opinion is shaped by their experience, not any intel, and the letter was not drafted by the CIA.

 

[iluvatar5150]

CIA hit with lawsuit over letter claiming Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation​

Below is from NYPost article that cannot be linked to because it shows Hunter nude holding an illegally purchased gun.​

That's how you know it's a quality journalistic outlet: they insert a bunch of salacious, barely-related photos into the piece.

Also, Hunter's naughty bits were blacked out, so I'd think the like would be okay to post. Alternatively, you could find a source that isn't the NY Post.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I suspect this will get tossed quickly, since the CIA had nothing to do with the letter -- as the letter makes clear. Part of the key is, as the OP, the letter being signed by FORMER intelligence agents. On top of that, the letter states, "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." (emphasis mine)

They clearly state their opinion is shaped by their experience, not any intel, and the letter was not drafted by the CIA.

On October 19, 2020, 51 "former intelligence officials" released a public statement attempting to discredit the contents of the New York Post’s reporting about Hunter Biden, stating that the story “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

News publications immediately ran with the statement. Politico published a story with the conclusive headline, “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former officials say.” During the final presidential debate on October 22, then-Vice President Biden cited the public statement to rebut President Trump’s criticism of the Biden family business dealings. Biden repeated the lie.

The letter begins by introducing the credibility and experience of its co-signatories before stating that their concern about how "the damage that foreign interference in our politics can do to our democracy" had led them to consider "that the arrival on the US political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden's son Hunter... has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation." The letter literally ended with"It is high time that Russia stops interfering in our democracy."

EVERY outlet in the tank for Biden ran with the Russian disinformation fake story to get Biden elected. Twitter and all of them SILENCED the accurate WAPO story. Using this source because there is a two minute video of outlet after outlet stating outright or strongly suggesting that this was "Russian Disinformation". It worked.

 

[comana]

On October 19, 2020, 51 "former intelligence officials" released a public statement attempting to discredit the contents of the New York Post’s reporting about Hunter Biden, stating that the story “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

News publications immediately ran with the statement. Politico published a story with the conclusive headline, “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former officials say.” During the final presidential debate on October 22, then-Vice President Biden cited the public statement to rebut President Trump’s criticism of the Biden family business dealings. Biden repeated the lie.

The letter begins by introducing the credibility and experience of its co-signatories before stating that their concern about how "the damage that foreign interference in our politics can do to our democracy" had led them to consider "that the arrival on the US political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden's son Hunter... has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation." The letter literally ended with"It is high time that Russia stops interfering in our democracy."

EVERY outlet in the tank for Biden ran with the Russian disinformation fake story to get Biden elected. Twitter and all of them SILENCED the accurate WAPO story. Using this source because there is a two minute video of outlet after outlet stating outright or strongly suggesting that this was "Russian Disinformation". It worked.

I think you are greatly overestimating the importance of Hunter’s laptop for Biden voters.

 

[SimplyMe]

On October 19, 2020, 51 "former intelligence officials" released a public statement attempting to discredit the contents of the New York Post’s reporting about Hunter Biden, stating that the story “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

News publications immediately ran with the statement. Politico published a story with the conclusive headline, “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former officials say.” During the final presidential debate on October 22, then-Vice President Biden cited the public statement to rebut President Trump’s criticism of the Biden family business dealings. Biden repeated the lie.

The letter begins by introducing the credibility and experience of its co-signatories before stating that their concern about how "the damage that foreign interference in our politics can do to our democracy" had led them to consider "that the arrival on the US political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden's son Hunter... has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation." The letter literally ended with"It is high time that Russia stops interfering in our democracy."

EVERY outlet in the tank for Biden ran with the Russian disinformation fake story to get Biden elected. Twitter and all of them SILENCED the accurate WAPO story. Using this source because there is a two minute video of outlet after outlet stating outright or strongly suggesting that this was "Russian Disinformation". It worked.

Which doesn't have anything to do with what I stated, in fact you merely reinforce it. Again, the letter, as you state, was written by "former officials." So it is stupid and pointless to sue the CIA, when the major tie the CIA has to the letter is that the authors once worked for the CIA.

 

[Yttrium]

I suspect this will get tossed quickly, since the CIA had nothing to do with the letter -- as the letter makes clear. Part of the key is, as the OP, the letter being signed by FORMER intelligence agents. On top of that, the letter states, "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." (emphasis mine)

They clearly state their opinion is shaped by their experience, not any intel, and the letter was not drafted by the CIA.

True, the CIA didn't have anything to do with writing the letter, but the CIA had to review the letter to make sure there was no classified information in it. In other words, they had to "clear" the letter. The lawsuit is going after records of the process that the CIA used to clear the letter. Seems to me to be a waste of time, but if the records themselves aren't classified, they might be available under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

[SimplyMe]

True, the CIA didn't have anything to do with writing the letter, but the CIA had to review the letter to make sure there was no classified information in it. In other words, they had to "clear" the letter. The lawsuit is going after records of the process that the CIA used to clear the letter. Seems to me to be a waste of time, but if the records themselves aren't classified, they might be available under the Freedom of Information Act.

Fair enough -- though not really news (except to Right Wingers who are trying to fuel some Grand Conspiracy).

I'm sure the records will show they looked to see if any current classified information was included with the document and, since there wasn't (it was clearly labeled as opinion), it was cleared.

 

[Yttrium]

Fair enough -- though not really news (except to Right Wingers who are trying to fuel some Grand Conspiracy).

I'm sure the records will show they looked to see if any current classified information was included with the document and, since there wasn't (it was clearly labeled as opinion), it was cleared.

Probably took one person all of two minutes to read the letter and sign off on it.

 

[Tinker Grey]

True, the CIA didn't have anything to do with writing the letter, but the CIA had to review the letter to make sure there was no classified information in it. In other words, they had to "clear" the letter. The lawsuit is going after records of the process that the CIA used to clear the letter. Seems to me to be a waste of time, but if the records themselves aren't classified, they might be available under the Freedom of Information Act.

I'm not sure this is true. Once I'm debriefed from my clearance, I'm free to say whatever that isn't classified. I don't need to submit anything for review (or I've not been so informed). Now, no doubt, if I did reveal something, I'm sure I'd be toast ... since I've agreed not to reveal anything I know.

As long as I have a clearance, my resume and any novel I might write might require me to submit it for approval. But once I am debriefed, I'm not under orders, per se.

I welcome correction, though.

 

[SimplyMe]

I'm not sure this is true. Once I'm debriefed from my clearance, I'm free to say whatever that isn't classified. I don't need to submit anything for review (or I've not been so informed). Now, no doubt, if I did reveal something, I'm sure I'd be toast ... since I've agreed not to reveal anything I know.

As long as I have a clearance, my resume and any novel I might write might require me to submit it for approval. But once I am debriefed, I'm not under orders, per se.

I welcome correction, though.

I believe the difference is that the letter was designed to be published -- they knew the article was going to be used in a paid ad in newspapers. As such, they believed it needed to be reviewed to be safe.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I believe the difference is that the letter was designed to be published -- they knew the article was going to be used in a paid ad in newspapers. As such, they believed it needed to be reviewed to be safe.

They might have done it to be safe. (I'm taking it that in fact it was reviewed.) I'm just not sure it was required. That is, when I retire and thus debrief from my clearance, I'm not sure I'm under any obligation to have anything I publish reviewed.

I just recently changed employers. For both employers, I hold a clearance. During the change, I did not have a clearance. Employer #1 did not inform me of any such obligations. Perhaps, since they knew the reason for my leaving their employ (switching to another defense contractor), there was no reason to inform me of such.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The letter didn't contain any classified intelligence, so it was probably easy for the CIA to clear it. Sorry, I see I'm not the first to reach this conclusion.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I'm not sure this is true. Once I'm debriefed from my clearance, I'm free to say whatever that isn't classified. I don't need to submit anything for review (or I've not been so informed). Now, no doubt, if I did reveal something, I'm sure I'd be toast ... since I've agreed not to reveal anything I know.

As long as I have a clearance, my resume and any novel I might write might require me to submit it for approval. But once I am debriefed, I'm not under orders, per se.

I welcome correction, though.

If these were former bigwigs, do they retain their clearances? I'm not privy to the process, but I've heard of other former high-level officials both having to get clearance for publications and being read in on new developments even after they've left service.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If these were former bigwigs, do they retain their clearances? I'm not privy to the process, but I've heard of other former high-level officials both having to get clearance for publications and being read in on new developments even after they've left service.

This may be a difference. I remember reading that former presidents often do so that they may brought in to confer with their successors.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I think you are greatly overestimating the importance of Hunter’s laptop for Biden voters.

No arguments here. Even if "Robert L. Peters" did indeed enrich himself and the family by selling access and meeting with foreign oligarchs, after which massive amounts of cash just show up in Biden shell accounts.

There is a segment that just doesn't care about whether Biden is indeed compromised, as by all appearances, he is.

 

[Pommer]

Such a juicy story! (Not)
Screenshot of the video from OP link shows us the fact that a Federal Judge dropped the misdemeanor tax charges, but the real story is a FOIA request (lawsuit) by Judicial Watch for something that the CIA doesn’t even (in all likelihood) HAVE.
Fluff.

 

[Yttrium]

I'm not sure this is true. Once I'm debriefed from my clearance, I'm free to say whatever that isn't classified. I don't need to submit anything for review (or I've not been so informed). Now, no doubt, if I did reveal something, I'm sure I'd be toast ... since I've agreed not to reveal anything I know.

As long as I have a clearance, my resume and any novel I might write might require me to submit it for approval. But once I am debriefed, I'm not under orders, per se.

I welcome correction, though.

When I was debriefed, I was told that for the next so many years (I forget how long) if I wanted to write about anything related to what I was working on (mainly satellites) I'd have to get it cleared. Even something like a science fiction novel. But I had some special clearances, so that might have had something to do with it.

 

[Tinker Grey]

When I was debriefed, I was told that for the next so many years (I forget how long) if I wanted to write about anything related to what I was working on (mainly satellites) I'd have to get it cleared. Even something like a science fiction novel. But I had some special clearances, so that might have had something to do with it.

Well it's certainly possible that once I read out for good, they'll say all that. In my case, I've switched from one branch of the military to another. One branch has a more sophisticated view of security than does the other.