In the midst of the 2020 presidential debate, a particular individual who signed the unwarranted Hunter Biden laptop letter aimed to assist Joe Biden by creating a ‘talking point.’ The credibility of this claim, which insinuates that Russians were somehow involved in the dubious laptop incident, has been gravely questioned. This individual is Larry Pfeiffer, a previous aide to ex-CIA director, Michael Hayden – another signatory of the notorious laptop letter.
The aforementioned allegations were made during a SpyTalk podcast that aired earlier in August, where Pfeiffer was engaged in a wider conversation. Evidently, his prime intention was to undermine recent declassifications by CIA Director, John Ratcliffe, and Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. It seems, holding onto established narratives was more paramount for him than allowing the truth to unfurl.
The New York Post circulated reports about the questionable conduct of Joe Biden’s son, suggesting covert dealings in China and Ukraine. These stories, promptly banned from social media and selectively silenced by entrenched media outlets, had their authenticity admitted only post-Biden’s election victory. This leaves one to consider, why the delay?
Some IRS whistle-blowers had already unveiled that by November 2019, almost a year prior to going public, the FBI had confirmed the laptop’s legitimacy. The questionable timeline and delayed admissions reveal a lack of honest discourse and shrouded favoritism that seems entrenched within certain circles.
Pfeiffer chose to bring attention to his letter signing during the SpyTalk podcast in early August, accentuating that other anonymous individuals had also signed it. ‘I engaged most with Morell, Marc Polymeropoulos, Kristin Wood, and Nick Shapiro during the immediate days following the letter signing,’ Pfeiffer said. Unsurprisingly, all these names come from a similar landscape of agency and power.
Kristin Wood previously served as a CIA officer, whereas Nick Shapiro spent a significant part of his career aiding ex-CIA director, John Brennan. The engaging actions and notable names in this scenario indicate a tightly-woven narrative, carefully orchestrated to keep the ball in some preferred courts, perhaps.
In the supposedly cryptic emails, Pfeiffer’s insistence that the aim was to support Biden in his debate performance creates an uneasy image of biased intervention. ‘Though the letter did not explicitly endorse a candidate or direct anyone to vote for Joe Biden, it was intended to be helpful to Biden,’ he shared. However, altruistic intentions in the political arena are often questionable at best, especially when the narrative is warped.
Biden’s ODNI, in its March 2021 report, concluded that ‘Russian state media, trolls, and online proxies, including those directed by Russian intelligence’ had propagated negative content about Joe and Hunter Biden. Curiously, the report made no reference to Hunter Biden’s laptop story – an important aspect conveniently omitted to maintain the overarching narrative.
Media personalities including MSNBC’s Chris Hayes and NPR drew hasty conclusions early in 2021, asserting that the ODNI report had dismissed the Biden laptop story. But despite the wishful thinking and eager narratives, they eventually had to retrace their false affirmations. This pattern of dismissal before thoughtful consideration has plagued our information channels, unfortunately.
The January 2017 assessment from CIA, FBI, and NSA declared with ‘high confidence’ that Putin orchestrated an influence campaign in 2016. The report alleged that Russia worked to ‘undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate former Secretary of State Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency’. Yet, we see a selective narrative pushed forward, comfortably ignoring key aspects when they don’t subscribe to a preferred viewpoint.
It was also stated that Russia ‘developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.’ However, a later review by CIA revealed that Putin’s supposed help to Trump didn’t justify the ‘high confidence’ attributed to it by CIA and FBI originally. Such changes in confidence levels ought to be seen with cautious scrutiny, given their impact on public perception.
The ICA’s 2017 report admits – the ‘confidence’ distinction mattered. It’s a red flag, exposing how the narrative was manipulated for political means, and how important underpinnings are often ignored in the final message delivered to the masses.
ODNI’s ‘Intelligence Community Directive 203’ emphasizes the importance of clarity in confidence levels. It states: ‘Analytic products should indicate and explain the basis for the uncertainties associated with major analytic judgments.’ But evidently, ‘confidence’ turned into a plaything in this scenario, adding perverse colors to an already dubious palette.
In conclusion, this raised set of occurrences gives one a clear insight into how narratives are crafted, manipulated, and propagated. The veil of confidence, accompanied by selective omissions, narrative bending, and distorted favoritism, obscures the truth from public view.
Despite all this evident twisting of narratives, one would hope that sincere attempts to bring clarity would not be thwarted. Alas, in the political arena, it becomes more about power play and less about ethical journalism and responsible reporting.
In the end, these revelations beg a revisit to the broader question: how sincere are we in our pursuit for truth? When political agendas dictate narratives, it diminishes the essence of truth and justice, the very foundations upon which a progressive society should be built.
The post The Unraveling of Biden’s Dubious Laptop Narrative appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
