In the runup to the 2020 election, 51 “intelligence experts” signed a letter claiming that the Hunter Biden laptop bore all the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation operation. In recent months we’ve learned that the letter was just a piece of campaign subterfuge, organized by Anthony Blinken, to insulate candidate Biden from evidence of corruption on the laptop.
Since the 2020 election, we’ve learned that the laptop has been validated by the FBI as authentic, and its contents have not been tampered with. The evidence on the laptop was even of such fidelity that it was used by the DoJ to prosecute Hunter Biden for tax evasion. The 51 knew that the letter – not the laptop – was complete disinformation, yet went along with Blinken’s plan, to provide plausible deniability to candidate Biden until after the election.
While we are justifiably outraged that the 51 used their credentials to dishonestly influence an election, we should also consider the implications of having people of such limited integrity serving in the intelligence community (IC).
Graeme Wood, writing for The Atlantic, points out that the 51 included professionals who had built careers in the IC by objectively assessing data, and providing rigorous analysis. Yet they skipped the discipline of their profession, when they flagged the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation. Wood wonders:
Why these titans of intelligence were willing to risk their hard-won credibility on the possibility that Hunter Biden might not be a slimeball is deeply mysterious.
Yes it is, but that is a statement based on a false assumption – that the signatories were people of honor. The 51 “titans of intelligence” didn’t risk their credibility, they revealed that they had none.
The most important question now isn’t “why” (as Wood seems to ask), it is “what.” We know they did it to influence an election, and were willing to jeopardize national security to do it (that’s the “why”). The more important question is: What other damages have such ethically challenged people done to America?
Some professions require honesty (adherence to facts) and integrity (adherence to principles). When a professional is discovered to have ethical deficits, it is reasonable to question whether they have ever been trustworthy.
If a police detective is caught tampering with evidence, it doesn’t merely undermine his current case. It calls into question every case he has ever investigated. Were there statements made under oath which were false? Was the evidence presented collected, preserved, and accounted for as claimed? Is there any proof other than the word of a demonstrated liar?
The 51 all served in professions requiring honesty and integrity, at the highest levels of the IC – some as directors of the CIA, NSA, and Office of National Security. How much of the analysis and advice provided by their departments was honest intelligence, and how much was political prevarication? Given their signatures on the letter, why should we presume the former rather than the latter? If it’s the latter, how much damage was done to America during their decades of building their organizations and advising executive decision makers?
Consider the recent conduct of the IC.
- They failed to recognize the growing danger of Al Qaida – until too late.
- They assured President Bush that Iraq had WMDs.
- They didn’t anticipate the fall of Libya, nor the rise of ISIS.
- They were wildly over optimistic with their nuclear assessments of Iran and North Korea.
- They were convinced that the Taliban would be a trustworthy partner during our retreat from Afghanistan.
- They haven’t said a word about the national security implications of an open border.
Have members of the IC just been bad at their jobs, or was something else going on? How many flawed executive decisions have been made based on political manipulation, which was presented as rigorous intelligence analysis?
Given that the people which populate our IC agencies were hired, trained, and guided by the 51 liars; can they be trusted to provide sound advice as
- China threatens Taiwan,
- Russia intimidates its neighbors,
- Iran expands its terror networks,
- Venezuela devolves into chaos,
- Mexico is commandeered by narco-terrorists, and
- Cuba sits 80 miles off our coast praying for our demise?
President Trump must surely be questioning the fidelity of the advice he receives from his intelligence services. I can just imagine the questions running through his head during his daily briefing. What have they missed, what are they hiding, and what are they lying about?
The 51 didn’t just expose their own lack of credibility. They cast suspicion over the entire intelligence community.
This article appeared previously on American Thinker.
Author Bio: John Green is a retired engineer and political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He spent his career designing complex defense systems, developing high performance organizations, and doing corporate strategic planning. He is a contributor to American Thinker, The American Spectator, and the American Free News Network. He can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA