Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Hunter Biden Lap(top) Dance
Adorable young girl bearing all of the classic earmarks of a President Biden grandchild.
Allow me to cut through the BS that follows. One David Priess, billing himself as a former CIA officer and ensconced in a cloud of liberal arts confidence, proceeded to make the rather legalistic argument that neither he nor any other one of the 50 former intelligence officials who signed the now infamous Hunter Biden laptop letter ever, ever, said that it was in fact the product of Russian disinformation.
Huh? … you might ask. Followed by, say what? Mr. Priess proceeded to dance around the truth in the manner of the Ethiopian shim-sham. A laptop dance, or, lap dance, if you will.
You see, we just aren’t as smart as Mr. Priess. Seems they made very clear that it may well not be Russian disinformation. It just has “all the earmarks” of Russian disinformation. See the difference. Well, actually I do. I also see that Mr. Priess is an idiot.
But first, let’s see what Mr. Priess actually said:
“We write to say that the arrival on the U.S. 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,” the letter stated.
“Why did you sign onto that?” Baier asked.
“Because of what it says,” Priess replied. “It has all of the classic earmarks of one of these operations. You’ll note elsewhere in the letter – if you read it – that it also says we don’t know if this is a Russian operation at all. That has been dramatically changed in the retelling of the story.” …
“Do you regret signing on to the letter?” Baier asked.
“Absolutely not,” came the reply. “Because those words are still true.”
“It had the classic earmarks, but it wasn’t true,” Baier shot back, adding that the “nuance” appeared lost on Joe Biden.
“It’s not my fault if people don’t look up definitions,” Priess said.
Now, stay with me here. What Mr. Priess is claiming in his haughty and self-satisfied way is that they merely claimed that the laptop bore “all of the classic earmarks of [a Russian] operation.” In other words, this could be an exquisite instance of someone imitating a Russian operation. Or it could be authentic. In either of these latter scenarios, the laptop would bear “all of the classic earmarks” of a Russian operation and yet not be one. Mr. Priess is claiming that this nuance serves to negate the clear thrust of the letter and that anyone not so attuned to its beautiful complexity is but a Visigoth incapable of looking up definitions.
Oh, my dear sweet idiot Mr. Priess. Here’s the problem Mr. Priess, oh exalted overlord of precision in all that is expressed. The most important and, indeed, the only omnipresent hallmark of a Russian disinformation operation is that … wait for it … keep waiting … and, here it is … it is a Russian operation. Not to go all “looking up definitions” on Mr. Priess’ backside, but an “earmark” is defined as “a characteristic or identifying feature. “
Some Russian ops may or may not include the production of fake material. Others may or may not involve the leaking of such material to political rivals. Any individual Russian operation may or may not include any or all of these classic earmarks. But every Russian operation includes the earmark, or, “characteristic or identifying feature” that it is fact an operation of the Russians.
Therefore, had the letter said that the laptop “has [some] of the classic earmarks of one of these operations,” Mr. Priess might have been able to say that the one earmark that was, in fact, missing was the most important one, namely, that it was a Russian operation. Unfortunately for Mr. Priess, he and his accomplices said the laptop has “all of the classic earmarks of one of these operations.” The only way you can assert that the laptop story bore all of the earmarks is to assert that one of its characteristics is that it is, in fact, a Russian operation. Period. End of story.
It is the icing on the cake that this gang who can’t shoot straight further asserted that “we don’t know if this is a Russian operation at all.” So, to be clear, you asserted that (1) it is 100% a Russian operation and (2) we 50 signatories, while asserting that to be true, lack the mental acuity to judge it to be true. That’s like saying, “two plus two equals four. But we are uniquely unqualified to understand if that is true.”
And this guy worked for the CIA? Be afraid, be very afraid. Unasked of Mr. Priess was, since the earmarks of which we are aware include (1) Hunter Biden brought the laptop into the repair store and (2) signed his signature attesting to his identity, is it really the case that Russian operations routinely make use of Hunter Biden in this manner? Just how involved in Russian disinformation operations is Hunter Biden and, by extension, his father? We are to believe that the CIA often discovers Russian disinformation operations and very often the operations involve one Hunter Biden dropping off laptops? Really? Just how many different laptops has Hunter dropped off at the behest of Russians? I’d like to know.
Seems worth asking.
Published in General
I prefer to address Jerry by his given name, Ray Epps.
Y’know word on the street is that David Priess has some ugly skeletons in his closet. His interview with Brett Baier has all the hallmarks of someone lying to cover up high crimes against the state.
Hmm, that was fun.
She is innocent. God put her in this world for a purpose. She is better far away from President Pedo
Hunter and the Bidens handling of this child show they have no class. It’s telling on character, but I am more interested in the payola Biden Inc got from foreign governments. How much of their policy decisions are based the amount of cash shown to the big guy?
Like Babylon Bee headlines, your statement is converging on actual truth.
At a Biden grandchild discussion yesterday on Fox I thought one of the reporters revealed that Hunter Biden is currently paying this woman $20,000.00 a month. Did I hear that correctly? If true, it seems to me that the woman is greedy and/or is being manipulated by his enemies to press the court case in order to force a look at any nefarious financial information that might lead to President Biden. I can’t believe I’m defending this guy, but I honestly don’t think any family would welcome the offspring of a stripper.
Yeah. I thought at the time that probably at least 70% of those birds still had their security clearances and if we had any direct intel as to where the contents of the laptop originated, they would have heard. It was worded in such a way as to convince the thickwitted scribes of the New York Times and Washington Post of something that they wanted to believe anyway.
Shoe on wrong foot if you ask me.
Given Hunter’s financial resources 20k per month is not unreasonable. I suspect she has expenses that most other single moms don’t have. If I were her I’d have armed security.
Are you thinking that either Joe or Hunter Biden is a better person than this mother whose current occupation we don’t know, at least I don’t, just as I don’t have any idea what Hunter Biden does for a living although there have been some clues presented. The child is the offspring of Hunter Biden and the grandchild of the President.
Why wouldn’t they welcome the offspring of their son?
The $20,000 per month child support was set some time ago. I don’t know if it was by agreement or by court order.
The current court proceedings arise because Hunter Biden petitioned the court to reduce or eliminate that support obligation, with Mr. Biden the younger pleading poverty. So Hunter Biden started the current proceedings.
It appears to legal people looking at this from outside that it occurred to Hunter Biden’s initial legal team only after they filed the petition to reduce the child support obligation that the plea of poverty would open up a legal justification to pry into all of Mr. Biden’s reported business dealings and the transfers of money around the Biden family. Once it dawned on the legal team that in pleading poverty, Hunter Biden would have to open up his financial and business records, the Biden team suddenly clammed up and began stonewalling the court. Again, on a petition Hunter Biden started.
Reports have circulated for years that Hunter Biden was being paid at least $80,000 – $100,000 per month for just one of his business deals. So $20,000 per month (a quarter or less of his income) for his child is not out of line on a relative basis to support a child in the style in which the child would be living but for being abandoned by her father.
It was intended to be used by other people to deny that the laptop had any value, so it didn’t matter that there were qualifications that undercut the assertion. Biden’s team knew that neither the press nor D voters would take any time to verify the contents of the letter, and that anyone who did would be drowned out in a sea of “nothing to see here….”