Lying spies: This New York Post The cover says it all.
In October 2020 – just days before the presidential election – 51 former intelligence officers signed a letter denouncing the contents of Hunter’s laptop from hell as baseless and bearing “all the hallmarks of a Russian information operation”.
It was a lie. They all knew it was a lie.
In March, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) introduced a House resolution that would strip security clearances from dozens of federal intelligence officials who signed a letter declaring the infamous Hunter Biden laptop as “Russian disinformation.” Geared up for the 2020 elections.
But now Americans may finally see justice.
Trending: Moving forward – The state of New California sends representatives to Washington DC
Rep. James Comer (R-KY) told Newsmax in November that Rep. Jim Jordan and the Judiciary Committee want to interview all 51 intelligence officials who signed a letter before the 2020 election saying the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.
Now 51 panicked and took back their lie about Hunter’s laptop.
James Clapper now says he never suggested Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation.
Of course, that was a lie and his name was listed on a letter signed with 51 dishonest and unreliable Intel officials.
The New York Post reported:
A key signatory to an open letter that falsely suggested the Post’s bombshell report on Hunter Biden’s emails was part of a “Russian intelligence operation” accused Politico of distorting “what we said” — two years after the fact.
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on Monday sought to defuse a growing controversy over a letter he and 50 other former spooks signed after first revealing the existence of the first son’s infamous laptop in October 2020.
His public statement, now the subject of an investigation by the Republican-led House Judiciary and Intelligence committees, was first reported by Politico and later seized upon by then-candidate Joe Biden.
“The message was ambiguous,” Clapper told The Washington Post. “What we are doing is raising a yellow flag that this could be Russian disinformation. There is a political deliberate twist to what we said. This was clear in paragraph five.
