Top Qs
Timeline
Chat
Perspective

Hunter Biden laptop letter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hunter Biden laptop letter
Remove ads

On October 14, 2020, the Hunter Biden laptop controversy began when the New York Post published a story about a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden that had been abandoned at a Delaware computer shop in 2019.[1] Five days later, a group of 51 former senior intelligence officials, who had served in four different administrations, including the Trump administration, released the Hunter Biden laptop letter, an open letter stating that the laptop "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation".

Thumb
Hunter Biden and then Vice President Joe Biden in 2009

By May 2023, no evidence had publicly surfaced to support suspicions that the laptop was part of a Russian disinformation scheme.[2][3] FBI investigators handling Hunter Biden's laptop quickly concluded in 2019 "that the laptop was genuinely his and did not seem to have been tampered with or manipulated".[4] PolitiFact wrote in June 2021 that the laptop did belong to Hunter Biden, but did not demonstrate wrongdoing by Joe Biden.[5]

Remove ads

Details

Summarize
Perspective

On October 16, 2020, three days prior to the letter's release, House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff said on CNN, "Well we know that this whole smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin ... Clearly, the origins of this whole smear are from the Kremlin, and the president is only too happy to have Kremlin help and try to amplify it," though Schiff did not specifically refer to the laptop story.[6] During an interview with Fox News on October 19, 2020, Trump's Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe disputed Schiff's statement, saying "there is no intelligence that supports that", and accused Schiff of mischaracterizing the views of the intelligence community by describing the alleged emails as part of a smear campaign against Joe Biden.[7] Schiff's spokesman accused Ratcliffe of "purposefully misrepresenting" the congressman's words.[8] In March 2021, two months after Ratcliffe left as DNI, the intelligence community he had overseen released analysis finding that proxies of Russian intelligence promoted and laundered misleading or unsubstantiated narratives about the Bidens "to US media organizations, US officials, and prominent US individuals, including some close to former President Trump and his administration."[9]

Further dispute over the interpretation of the letter arose when, on the day of its release, Politico published a story with the misleading headline, "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say," though the body of the story did not support that wording. Instead, the story's lede accurately quoted the letter's words: "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation".[10] During the second 2020 presidential debate held on October 22, 2020, Joe Biden repeated the article's misleading claim in stating, "Look, there are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plan".[11] He would later repeat the claim in a 60 Minutes interview held on October 25, 2020.[12]

Republican congressmen Jim Jordan and Mike Turner said that Michael Morell, a signatory of the letter and former deputy director of the CIA under President Obama, testified before Congress in April 2023 about events leading up to the publication of the letter. Morell revealed that on or around October 17, 2020, Antony Blinken, then a senior adviser to the Biden campaign, called him to discuss the laptop story. Jordan and Turner highlighted that, according to Morell, the phone call with Blinken "set in motion the events that led to" the publication of the letter.[13][14] The congressmen said that retired CIA officer David Cariens had informed them via email that the agency's Prepublication Classification Review Board approved the letter and helped recruit signatories.[15][16]

Remove ads

Reactions

Summarize
Perspective

Many Republicans and their allies have since cited the Politico headline to insist the intelligence community had lied for the benefit of Joe Biden in the election weeks later and The Wall Street Journal noted in 2022 how failure on the part of several media outlets to thoroughly investigate the Biden campaign's claims played a role in shaping public perception prior to the election.[17]

On February 13, 2023, The Washington Post fact-checker wrote that the Politico headline "likely shaped perceptions of the letter that continue to this day."[18] Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper asserted the letter's message had been distorted, saying "all we were doing was raising a yellow flag that this could be Russian disinformation. Politico deliberately distorted what we said. It was clear in paragraph five."[19] Another signer, longtime State Department and intelligence official Thomas Fingar remarked, "No one who has spent time in Washington should be surprised that journalists and politicians willfully or unintentionally misconstrue oral or written statements." Despite the criticism, Politico stood by the story.

Former Politico reporters Marc Caputo and Tara Palmeri said on 23 January 2025 that, because of "dumb decisions of cowardly editors", they were told "Don’t write about the laptop, don’t talk about the laptop, don’t tweet about the laptop". Caputo said the Politico story about the letter had a "terrible, ill-fated headline ... because the Hunter Biden laptop appeared to be true".[20]

Revocation of security clearances

On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump issued an executive order (titled "Holding Former Government Officials Accountable for Election Interference and Improper Disclosure of Sensitive Governmental Information") revoking the security clearances of all the officials who signed the letter. The executive order states "The signatories willfully weaponized the gravitas of the Intelligence Community to manipulate the political process and undermine our democratic institutions". Lawyers including Mark Zaid and Dan Meyer said that the revocation can be challenged in court.[21][22][23]

Remove ads

Signatories

Summarize
Perspective
More information Name, Agency ...

In addition, nine additional former IC officers who could not be named publicly also supported the arguments in this letter.[40]

Remove ads

References

Loading related searches...

Wikiwand - on

Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.

Remove ads