So Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop has now been introduced into the trial where Hunter has now been found guilty on three counts.
Now what?
The infamous “laptop from hell” (as the New York Post’s crack reporter Miranda Devine called it) has now been used as hard, factual evidence in Hunter Biden’s recent trial in Delaware.
The Washington Examiner reports as follows:
IRS whistleblowers revealed the FBI verified the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s laptop by November 2019, nearly a year before social media companies censored stories about it.
They also said some laptop contents were withheld during their criminal investigation.
The whistleblower claims came from two IRS agents who played key roles in the Hunter Biden investigation: Gary Shapley, a supervisory special agent with the IRS’s criminal investigation, and a yet-unnamed IRS case agent who is referred to as “Whistleblower X.” The whistleblowers said the laptop hard drive belonging to President Joe Biden’s son was quickly determined to be authentic, but there were limitations placed on what laptop contents they were allowed to use in their inquiry.
So. Got all that? The FBI had verified the authenticity of the laptop all the way back in 2019. That would be a full year before the 2020 election and the revelation of the laptop’s existence by the New York Post.
And what happened in 2020? When the New York Post published its scoop, Big Government and Big Tech went out of their way to shut down the story, close to effectively killing it.
As Sean Hannity said this week, the FBI set about “pre-bunking” the story.
Then there were those 51 so-called intelligence experts who brazenly lied about the authenticity of the laptop.
In 2022, the New York Post ran a front page story headlined:
Spies who lie: 51 ‘intelligence’ experts refuse to apologize for discrediting true Hunter Biden story
The Post pursued the 51, publishing their names in March of 2022, along with what they said individually to the Post when contacted. I’ll list a mere six names and their responses to the Post to give you a flavor of how these people are playing the game:
Mike Hayden, former CIA director, now analyst for CNN: Didn’t respond.
Jim Clapper, former director of national intelligence, now CNN pundit: “Yes, I stand by the statement made AT THE TIME, and would call attention to its 5th paragraph. I think sounding such a cautionary note AT THE TIME was appropriate.”
Leon Panetta, former CIA director and defense secretary, now runs a public policy institute at California State University: Declined comment.
John Brennan, former CIA director, now analyst for NBC and MSNBC: Didn’t respond.
Thomas Fingar, former National Intelligence Council chair, now teaches at Stanford University: Didn’t respond.
Rick Ledgett, former National Security Agency deputy director, now a director at M&T Bank: Didn’t respond.
That’s a mere six of the 51 names. And as with the six I’ve just named, the other 45 are similarly listed by the Post as either not responding or declining to comment.
Now.
This week in the Wall Street Journal, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had an op-ed published. McConnell does not mention either the laptop or the coverup by the 51 intel experts and their lying. But you’ll get the connection.
McConnell headlined his piece:
Mitch McConnell: Liberal Bureaucrats Threaten Democracy
The administrative state thwarts the Constitution’s structure for keeping officials accountable.
McConnell said this:
Democrats like to say that “democracy is at stake” in November. That may be true, but not in the way they think. Across all three branches of the federal government, liberals are working to undermine democratic accountability over their exercise of power. Their philosophy of the administrative state has one unifying thread: the abrogation of democratic legitimacy in deference to unelected bureaucrats.
McConnell ends by saying:
The Constitution vests each branch of the federal government with an exclusive power, responsive to the people in elections. In each branch, liberals seek to remove that power from democratic accountability and vest it in unelected bureaucrats. This practice might come from a good-faith trust in “experts,” or a sincere belief that sound policy is too valuable to risk in elections. But at its core, it is a rejection of democratic accountability in favor of the administrative state.
In short, the handling of the Hunter laptop by the FBI and the seemingly instinctive attack on the truthfulness of the laptop contents by those 51 intel experts? All of this combines to illustrate exactly Sen. McConnell’s sharply worded point that what was originally supposed to provide for democratic accountability has in fact now been vested in unelected bureaucrats.
Note well that, to this moment, no name has been provided as to who, specifically, inside the FBI, authorized the treatment of the Hunter Biden laptop. Over at the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show, co-host Travis raised the same question. The American public simply doesn’t know who did this. And they have every right to know that person’s, as it were, name, rank, and serial number.
Republicans control the House. It would seem, at a minimum, that they should be demanding the answer to that mystery.
That would be:
Who did it?
