Lee Smith: The Washington Post and New York Times Only Admitted that Hunter Biden's Laptop Had Been "Partially" Verified In Order to Discredit The Bombshells They Feared Were Coming

Girls. Young girls.

Another magisterial bit of reporting -- and big-picturing, too -- from Lee Smith.

The whole thing should be read, but here's probably the grabbiest part. Apart, that is, from the fundamental corruption of the oligarch class.

Jack Maxey is the cohost of Steve Bannon's War-Room. He got leaked a copy of the hard-drive, and brought it to the Washington Post.

Of course, the Washington Post waited nine months to authenticate the laptop, preferring, during that time, to allow the word of 50 corrupt Deep State intelligence officials-- which they knew to be a lie-- to stand.

To fortify the election, you know.

Nine months after Maxey sat with Post reporters to explain the contents of the hard drive, the paper reported its own independent authentication of 22,000 emails in March of 2022. These included communications regarding a deal with a Chinese energy company that earned Hunter $5 million, and his work with Burisma, the Ukrainian energy firm that paid him $83,333 per month to sit on its board. His father later boasted in public that he'd threatened to withhold a $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine unless the central government in Kyiv fired the prosecutor investigating Burisma. At roughly the same time The Washington Post authenticated these emails, The New York Times also verified communications found on Hunter Biden's computer.

So, have America's two most prestigious newsprint organizations at last acknowledged that they were wrong to believe former intelligence officials who claimed the New York Post's October 2020 reporting on the Biden laptop was Russian disinformation? Of course not. They were and remain proud of their role in helping push Trump out of Washington. According to one survey, one out of six Biden voters said that had they known about Hunter's laptop in time, they wouldn't have voted for his father.

What concerned the prestige press wasn't that they'd missed a big story--or that they'd participated in a campaign run by U.S. intelligence services to prevent American voters from learning about the extent of the Bidens' political and moral corruption. Rather, they were worried that an even bigger story about the Bidens might be coming down the road. Maxey says he called the Post in March to say he was taking the hard drive to Switzerland to meet with a cyber expert named Vincent Kaufmann who told him he thought he could retrieve material deleted from the laptop.

The Times published its story two days after Maxey landed in Zurich, and the Post published its own "investigation" two weeks later, pronouncing some of the emails genuine while claiming it was hard to tell with others. As a longtime platform for U.S. intelligence operations--and owned by the same man, Jeff Bezos, who owns the cloud computing technology that Amazon Web Services uses to store the CIA's information--the Post wanted to help the White House get ahead of potential problems.

Maxey says that after he saw two dozen images of young girls, he told Kaufmann not to look at any more. "I don't know how many he looked at," says Maxey. "He was disturbed by what he saw and that no one would do anything about it. He's a moral person with an incredible skillset but has no life experience. He's a 31-year-old guy with a bag of chocolate bars or a Diet Coke in one hand and a computer mouse in the other." Tablet tried to reach Kaufmann for comment, but did not hear back.

Kaufmann began posting some of the material on 4Chan, the anonymous posting board where the messaging operation QAnon started. Users copied the images and text and seeded it on social media platforms like Twitter. Maxey says he never would have released it. "From day one I told Vincent that we can't release any of this material."

Maxey says he also saw information on the laptop that has direct implications for U.S. national security. According to Maxey, this material includes documents relating to Pentagon cyber programs and others regarding former FBI Director Louis Freeh. According to a previously released email on Hunter's laptop, Freeh worked with him to help a Romanian tycoon evade bribery charges. In April 2016, according to an earlier trove of emails, Freeh deposited $100,000 in a trust fund for two of Joe Biden's grandchildren.

"Vincent thought the media was covering for the Bidens," says Maxey. "Which is true. He also thought I was shielding them. He couldn't understand why nothing was happening. He couldn't believe people wouldn't protect children, so he felt he needed to deal with it." Maxey says that since Kaufmann posted the material online, he's spoken with "several sheriffs who have reached out to help, and it looks like we can resolve this."

That's been a problem for a long time -- people are afraid the feds will come after them for revealing the CP recovered from the president's son's laptop.

Which, of course -- they will.

I'll relay a little more. Ron Johnson says that when he was preparing his Senate report, the FBI came to him and told him he was being targeted by "Russian disinformation." Johnson asked him for the specific reasons for the warning, and they could give him none -- they just repeated the vague, general warning, which was meaningless.

Johnsons suspected the warning was not legitimate -- it was not being used to actually warn him, but to prepare the way for a propaganda play later.

And he was right. Because when he released his report, the FBI rushed to the Washingon Post to tell them that Johnson had been warned that this was all, what else, "Russian disinformation."

He wasn't being warned to protect him; he was being "warned" to protect Joe and Hunter Biden, so that Joe and Hunter Biden's Palace Guard in the FBI could later brand Johnson's report as "Russian disinformation."

Margot Cleveland reported this in her outstanding piece in The Federalist.

According to an August 5, 2020, Washington Post article, "the Democrats have requested the member briefing for months, and the FBI and U.S. intelligence agencies have previously briefed committee staff on possible foreign disinformation." The FBI later briefed both Grassley and Johnson on August 6, 2020, but according to the senators, that briefing was both "unsolicited and unnecessary" and failed to provide any new information to the senators or any specific allegations that they had received "disinformation" as part of their Hunter Biden investigation.

Given that FBI supervisory intelligence analyst Brian Auten, according to whistleblowers, opened his assessment into Hunter in August, the whistleblowers' allegations raise serious questions concerning whether Democrats pressured the FBI into launching an investigation into Hunter as a pretext to provide the desired "disinformation briefing."

Further, in April of 2021, someone leaked the fact that the FBI had briefed Grassley and Johnson on August 6, 2020, with the Washington Post running a story painting the senators as reckless in their investigation into Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings by suggesting they "ignored FBI warnings and thus may have been manipulated by the Kremlin." As the Wall Street Journal reported at the time, it seems possible that "the FBI set up two Members of Congress for political attack under the guise of a 'defensive briefing.'"

The whistleblowers' accusations then, when coupled with the media coverage, suggest that an agent from FBI headquarters opened an assessment to provide cover to Hunter Biden, to eliminate source trails for the investigation into then-candidate Joe Biden's son, and to taint the legitimate inquiry into Hunter Biden's business dealings. That scandal, however, represents but half the issue because the whistleblowers' statements, if true, suggest the assessment of Hunter was a sham. And as a sham, the agents would not vet the evidence available to them, which would have included the MacBook laptop Hunter had abandoned at a repair shop in Delaware.

The FBI are criminals.

Definitely read Margot Cleveland's piece.

Back to Lee Smith.

Smith notes that Giuliani came back from Keeeev with purported audio of Joe Biden in 2016 telling the then-president of Ukraine to destroy evidence if Trump started investigating them. Maybe it's real, maybe not, but of course Biden immediately ran to his pals at The Atlantic to brand it, you'll never guess, "Russian disinformation."

No one bothers to investigate this tape, because the Palace Guard -- which has been right exactly zero times in its last 100 claims of "Russian disinformation" -- has said it's Russian disinformation, and only a Russian Disinformation Spreader would doubt them.

With this history noted, Lee Smith then writes:

That's how the Oct. 19, 2020, letter signed by more than 50 former U.S. spies worked, too. To substantiate their assessment that the laptop was Russian disinformation, former U.S. intelligence officials cited as evidence a Washington Post story published four days earlier, which reported that, according to four former U.S. intelligence officials, U.S. intelligence officials had warned the White House that Giuliani--the man who put the laptop in front of American voters--had been targeted by the Russians. In other words, the letter was pre-validated and primed by some of the former spies who signed the letter.

This cadre of Fifth Columnists warned Giuliani he was being used by Russian intelligence and leaked that to the Washington Post. And then, four days later, said the laptop Giuliani presented was Russian disinformation in a very-well publicized letter, published, obviously, at the Washington Post.

And the evidence the laptop was Russian Disinformation? Well, look at the article in the Washington Post from four days ago, in which it was reported that intelligence officials (totally not us!) warned Giuliani that the laptop was Russian Disinformation.

I believe this is a propaganda technique called "playback," where you leak your propaganda message to a friendly press source, and then cite the friendly press source as an independent third party source which verifies the claim you're making, totally independently!

And our own intelligence agencies are running techniques designed for foreign subversion and psyops against the American populace itself.

This cannot go on.

This cannot go on.

And there must be consequences.

It's illegal for the US intelligence agencies to run operations against the American people.

They must be held to account, and any Republican who continues shielding them must be turned out of office, even if a Democrat should replace them.

posted by Ace at 05:10 PM

| Access Comments