Peloni: Accountability before the law is an essential aspect of civilized society. Lacking this, there is little which distinguishes civilization from the very real barbarians who stand at the gates.
By Thomas McInerney LTG, USAF (Ret) & Paul E. Vallely MG, US Army (Ret) | March 23, 2025
By secumem – secumem, CC BY-SA 3.0
Federal authorities eventually confirmed that the laptop belonging to President Biden’s son was authentic. However, national security experts have stated that they stand by the 2020 letter they penned, expressing their concerns about disinformation. Emails from the device, which was left at a Delaware computer shop, showed that the younger Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm where Hunter, 54, sat on the board.
A copy of the hard drive was given to New York Post, while the computer was handed over to the FBI by the computer shop’s owner in 2019.The FBI also “verified” its authenticity in November 2019, an IRS whistleblower told Congress in a 2023 deposition.
Following the bombshell reporting, a slew of former senior intelligence officers signed a letter alleging the lot of emails “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” without presenting any new evidence.[1]
BACKGROUND:
On October 14, 2020, The New York Post published a report detailing how Hunter Biden allegedly used his father’s position and influence, now-President Joe Biden, for personal gain, with apparent awareness on the part of President Biden. Five days later, on October 19, 2020, 51 former intelligence officials signed on to a public statement that stated that the Hunter Biden laptop story had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation,” in an attempt to discredit the New York Post’s reporting.
Since April 2022—and renewed in January 2023, when Republicans resumed control of the House of Representatives—the Committees have been conducting oversight into the origins of this statement. The Committees wrote to all 51 former officials requesting relevant documents and testimony.
The Committee’s first joint interim staff report revealed how the now-infamous and discredited Hunter Biden statement originated with a call from top Biden campaign official—and now Secretary of State—Antony Blinken to former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell to provide talking points and cover for the Biden campaign to discredit serious allegations about the Biden family’s influence peddling. Morell’s testimony also exposed that the goal of the statement was to aid President Biden in the final debate of the 2020 presidential campaign.
The highest officials within the CIA were aware of the statement prior to its publication. CIA’s Chief Operating Officer (COO) Andrew Makridis testified that he informed Director Gina Haspel or Deputy Director Vaughn Frederick Bishop about its impending release. This sequence of events suggests that senior CIA leadership had ample opportunity to assess the validity of the claims made in the statement. Furthermore, the COO’s office appeared to signal approval of the statement in a move that departed from standard Prepublication Classification Review Board (PCRB) protocols.
Additionally, some of the statement’s signatories were on active contract with the CIA at the time they issued the statement to discredit damaging allegations about Biden family influence peddling. Despite claiming they lacked access to classified information at the time, at least two signatories—Michael Morell and former CIA Inspector General David Buckley—were actively working for the CIA as contractors. This revelation raises concerns that these officials may have abused their positions to expedite the statement’s approval and may have been earning taxpayer dollars while they did it.
Furthermore, officials within the CIA recognized at the time that the Hunter Biden statement was political and would hurt the Agency. The signatories’ decision to leverage their former intelligence community titles to promote a narrative about foreign election interference improperly embroiled the Agency in domestic politics. This report underscores the potential dangers of a politicized intelligence community.
Federal policymakers must be able to rely on analysis conducted by the Intelligence Community and be confident that it is accurate, crafted with professionalism, and free from politically motivated engineering to affect political outcomes in the United States. The signatories willfully weaponized the gravitas of the Intelligence Community to manipulate the political process and undermine our democratic institutions. This fabrication of the imprimatur of the Intelligence Community to suppress information essential to the American people during a Presidential election is an egregious breach of trust reminiscent of a third world country. And now the faith of Americans in all other patriotic intelligence professionals who are sworn to protect the Nation has been imperiled.
These are people who have committed treason and have betrayed our country and need to be indicted and placed under arrest immediately. There is more than sufficient evidence to convict these individuals. It is the policy of the United States to ensure that the Intelligence Community not be engaged in partisan politics or otherwise used by a U.S. political campaign for electioneering purposes. The term “Intelligence Community” has the meaning given the term in section 3003 of Title 50, United States Code.
Contact: suaus1961@gmail.com;
[1] New York Post, 11/ 2020
Civil servants and contractors to the government, should not have a right to vote, to cauterise their political ambitions.
It’s a simple thing to demand. if you suck at the gooberment teat, you lose the right to vote.