Thread by @JMichaelWaller

1) Let's look at the material parts of the intelligence professionals' letter about Hunter Biden's emails.

The letter hedges a lot more than the "news" reporting leads the reader to think, but the reasons & conclusions are unbecoming of a professional. politico.com/f/?id=00000175…

2) "the arrival on the US political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his time serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation."

3) Just "earmarks," no evidence, but still a valid concern.

But they express no concern about how Joe Biden's son was on the board of Burisma, which was set up under the pro-Kremlin Yanukovich government of Ukraine, or whether that was an influence op.

4) "We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not ...."

Fair enough. They emphasize that they have no facts, just suspicions.

5) "... and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case."

They admit no evidence of any kind that Moscow was behind the Hunter Biden email leak.

6) "If we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this."

So they admit that they might not be right, this is just a "belief."

Good for public awareness, but not fact-based.

7) "Such an operation would be consistent with Russian objectives, as outlined publicly and recently by the Intelligence Community, to create political chaos in the United States and to deepen political divisions here..."

Fair enough. Russia has done this for almost 100 years.

8) I've read most of the literature & statements by the most-published and -quoted signatories, and never saw ANY concern before 2016 about Russian influence ops against America.

Clapper, Brennan & others pushed discredited Russian disinformation in 2016, aka the Steele dossier.

9) Now for the partisan pitch. Release of the Hunter Biden emails is not only to "deepen political divisions here" - "but also to undermine the candidacy of former Vice President Biden and thereby help the candidacy of President Trump."

They don't say why Moscow favors Trump.

10) Indeed, the assertion that the Kremlin wants to "undermine" Biden "and thereby help" Trump does not survive scrutiny.

Again, they show no interest in Hunter Biden taking cash from Burisma or Russian or Chinese interests in possible efforts to influence the Obama government.

11) If they held out for the possibility that Joe Biden might have been targeted under corrupt foreign influence deals through son Hunter, we could take seriously their professed concern about Russian interference in American politics.

But they didn't, so we can't.

12) "For the Russians at this point ... there is incentive for Moscow to pull out the stops to do anything possible to help Trump win and/or to weaken Biden should he win. A 'laptop op' fits the bill, as the publication of the emails are clearly designed to discredit Biden."

13) There certainly would be incentive for the Kremlin to leak such information to help a favored candidate.

But these intelligence professionals ignore documented reports, with the names of agents, that the FBI had the Hunter Biden hard drive nearly a year ago.

Why omit that?

14) Joe and Hunter Biden have not denied the factual nature of the reported contents of the computer drive and emails.

The signers say nothing about the fact that Hunter's ex-business partner, Bevan Cooney, provided full access to his email account as a second primary source.

15) The letter goes on to cite the Mueller investigation and other probes, never mentioning the manufactured falsehoods in the Steele Dossier (or the some of the signatories' role in spreading them), and so on.

Then it cites press reports that the Russians hacked Burisma.

The Burisma hacks were reported in January 2020 - A month after FBI took possession of Hunter Biden's laptop. Could some Comey-McCabe-Strzok hangers-on in the FBI have leaked or even fabricated those reports to discredit inevitable future reports about the laptop? We don't know.

17) But the IC's record on this is very damaged, to say the least. Regardless, it's disturbing that intelligence officers cite anonymous and illegal leaks of classified information to bolster the political point they are making.

18) "Ukrainian politician and businessman Andriy Derkach, identified and sanctioned by the US Treasury Department for being a 10-year Russian agent interfering in the 2020 election, passed purported materials on Burisma and Hunter Biden to Giuliani."

This is disturbing.

19) Any good prosecutor like @RudyGiuliani would collect information from dirtbags in order to collect on other dirtbags.

Giuliani had been alerted that the US considered Derkach a Russian agent. But no evidence has been presented that Giuliani was a pass-through for Derkach.

20) Good professional intelligence officers also collect information from criminals and hostile spies, because that's their job.

It's up to intelligence analysts to determine the truth, based on real analysis and fact. The letter signers don't indicate that they did that.

21) The signers then express their "view" that the Hunter Biden email revelation was a Russian spy job because of a Washington Post report.

That report, based on four leaks, was that the White house had been warned that the Russians had targeted Giuliani in an influence op.

22) This is a job of US intelligence: To warn the national leadership of such ops.

With the leak, it's clear that Giuliani knew. So he was immunized against the op.

If he knew but had malevolent motives, why would he publicly be part of the Hunter exposé and damage POTUS?

23) The letter's logic therefore leaps to conclusions & often makes no sense.

Now: A question for the signers who led US intelligence during 2014-17 time in question: Did they warn Biden and Obama that Hunter was part of a foreign influence-buying scheme?

They haven't said so.

24) Had Clapper and Brennan said they warned Obama and Biden about Hunter when they were on duty, they would have had the moral high ground in this letter.

But they didn't.

They're obfuscating. Their failure to warn about Hunter's foreign cash deals reflects directly on them.

25) "...FBI has now opened an investigation into Russian involvement in this case. According to USA Today, '...federal authorities are investigating whether the material supplied to the New York Post by Rudy Giuliani...is part of a smoke bomb of disinformation pushed by Russia.”

26) Good. The FBI should be investigating Russian involvement in this case.

Look at the failure here. The signers make a major public statement while admitting to have seen none of the facts

And they don't call on FBI to probe whether Biden was part of a foreign influence op.

27) Now look at the conclusion:

"We do not know whether these press reports are accurate," they say, having taken the reports earlier as fact.

"...but they do suggest concern within Executive Branch departments and agencies that mirrors ours."

So these are concerns, not facts.

28) "It is high time that Russia stops interfering in our democracy."

Very true. What harsh penalties did any of the signers EVER propose to stop Russian interfering? Zero.

Some of us did make proposals. Back in 2016, when Brennan & Clapper were on duty. centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2016/08/16/wik…

@threadreaderapp unroll