90 Miles From Tyranny

Thursday, May 19, 2022

Justice coming for the ‘Dirty 51’ Hunter Biden laptop liars

Fifty-one former intelligence officials dismissed The Post's Hunter Biden reports as a "Russian information operation."

One of the most galling aspects of the Hunter Biden laptop saga is that the 51 former intelligence officials who played such a critical role in suppressing The Post’s stories and giving Joe Biden cover before the 2020 election have never been brought to account.

The “Dirty 51” lied by painting our stories as Russian disinformation in an Oct. 19, 2020, letter they signed and delivered to Politico five days after The Post exposé and three days before the final presidential debate of the election campaign.

They used the institutional weight of their powerful former roles to legitimize partisan political propaganda designed to smear The Post and everyone associated with the story and dissuade the rest of the media from looking deeper into the laptop.

The letter, titled “Public Statement on the Hunter Biden emails,” and signed by former CIA Directors John Brennan, Leon Panetta and Mike Hayden, former acting CIA Director Michael Morell, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and other ex-spooks, claimed the material on Hunter’s hard drive “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation,” although not one of them had seen it.

Their lie “probably affected the outcome” of the 2020 presidential race, as former Attorney General William Barr has said, describing the letter as “partisan hackery,” “baseless” and signed by “a coterie of retired intelligence officials who had lost their professional bearings.”

Yet they have never apologized or retracted their lie. In fact, when The Post contacted the group in March, after the New York Times belatedly acknowledged the laptop was real, some, like Clapper, doubled down.

Former CIA Director John Brennan has not commented on The Post’s Hunter Biden exposé.EPA

One former CIA officer who signed the letter, John Sipher, boasted that he took “special pride in personally swinging the election away from Trump.”

“I lost the election for Trump?” wrote Sipher during a Twitter spat with a former Trump official. “Well then I [feel] pretty good about my influence.”

The arrogance of these Deep Staters tells you that they believe they will get away with lying to influence an election.

But there’s one person with a bee in his bonnet who isn’t going to let the story go: Donald Trump.

The former president has sicced uber-attorney Tim Parlatore on the Dirty 51. On Wednesday, Parlatore launched the first stage of a multi-prong strategy to make those who signed the letter pay for the damage they have wrought to freedom of the press, election integrity and the welfare of the nation.

His goal is to uncover alleged communications between the Dirty 51 and the Biden campaign.

Parlatore began by filing five letters of complaint with the agencies that formerly employed the 51, including the CIA — which counted 43 of its former officials among the group — the National Security Agency, the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Defense.

‘Egregious breach’

Each letter complains of “an egregious breach” by former agency employees “that appears to have been overlooked by your agency, as it has gone uninvestigated and certainly unpunished. Specifically, the unauthorized publication and dissemination of an intelligence assessment, purportedly based on classified information, that was used wrongfully to influence the outcome of an election.”

It points out that each of the Dirty 51 was “bound by the lifelong obligation” to submit the letter to their former agencies for pre-publication security review to ensure it didn’t contain classified information, a process that could take several months. The letter then would have been stamped with a disclaimer that the agency was not vouching for its accuracy.

“That would have destroyed the usefulness of the document,” says Parlatore, “plus the process would have delayed it so long, it would not be useful” because the election would have been over.

Letters were sent to John Hoffister Hedley, chairman of the Prepublication Classification Review Board at the CIA; Gen. Paul Nakasone, director of the National Security Agency and commander of United States Cyber Command; Christine Abizaid, director of the National Counterterrorism Center at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; Caroline Krass, general counsel, Department of Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review; and Avril Haines, director of the Information Management Division in the Office of the DNI.

‘Russian information op’

The letters state: “Leading up to the 2020 election, the New York Post published stunning revelations which were lawfully obtained from a laptop that formerly belonged to Hunter Biden, son of then-candidate Joe Biden.

“This information, which raises significant concerns about the financial dealings of a presidential candidate and his potential ties to...

36 states have reported 180 mysterious hepatitis cases in children
9-15% of the children have required liver transplants
Numerous countries are reporting simultaneous surges in similar cases
CDC says it has no idea what's causing the illnesses
The surge has happened since children were approved for Covid vaccines
CDC surveillance for pediatric hepatitis cases of unknown origin dates back to Oct. 2021 when Covid vaccines were first approved for young children
Some public health experts have ruled out the vaccine as a culprit since not all of the sick children had gotten vaccinated
CDC says "adenovirus has been detected in nearly half of the children and continues to be a strong lead"
A different variant of adenovirus is used to make the Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine
CDC recently limited use of the Johnson & Johnson Covid vaccine citing another reason: blood clot risk
Some scientists say that when it comes to vaccines, it's possible for viral changes to occur that end up impacting populations that were not vaccinated
CDC says no deaths have been reported so far

Read CDC's latest update below:

Update on Children with Acute Hepatitis of Unknown Cause

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continues to work with health departments and clinicians nationwide to identify and investigate hepatitis of unknown cause impacting children. As of today, 36 states and territories have reported 180 pediatric patients under investigation over the past 7 months, which is an increase of 71 from the 109 publicly reported on May 5. 

While this may appear to be a large increase in patients under investigation over the last two weeks, it’s important to understand that the vast majority of these are what we consider ‘retrospective’ patients. Since CDC’s investigation looks at patients reported back to October of 2021, most of these numbers involve patients that are just now being reported, rather than new cases of hepatitis – so not all are recent, and some may ultimately wind up not being linked to this current investigation. Additionally, there have been no reported deaths since February 2022, and the proportion of patients requiring liver transplants has gone down from 15 percent to 9 percent since May 5.  

CDC continues to examine possible causes, including testing for and ruling out...

Visage à trois #247

Three Videos For Your Viewing Pleasure:

Three Additional Bonus Videos:

Quick Hits Of Wisdom, Knowledge And Snark #413

Statistical analysis shows that NOBODY under 60 should take the COVID vaccine

This is a PRELIMINARY result based on over 1,500 death reports we've received so far. You are welcome to download our data yourself and analyze it and see if you agree. You may find some new things.

This is big. Really big. This may prove to be one of the most important articles I will write this year.

Figure 1 below is an analysis of survey data I collected. The analysis shows that the vaccines are harmful to those under 60. The red dots higher than the error bar means more vaccinated people observed dead than expected based on the population of vaccinated to all people. In other words, if we vaccinated 60% of people (middle of the grey bar) and 70% (red dot) of the deaths are vaccinated, we have a serious problem.

The precautionary principle of medicine suggests if you are under 60 and thinking of taking a vaccine, you shouldn’t. These preliminary results are both statistically significant.

Figure 1. Red dot below error bar = vax works. Red dot above error bar = vax likely causes harm. Red dot inside the error bar = Insufficient evidence to justify taking a new, unproven vaccine. Conclusion: Vaccine shouldn’t be considered unless there is a clear benefit. 60 and older seems to justify use based on the data we have so far. Limitations: we are waiting for others to confirm / challenge the analysis. See text for more info. Joel Smalley did the analysis..

However, there could be errors in the analysis and/or survey bias errors that will change the result, so this is preliminary. I hope to make these not preliminary in a few days.

I created a mortality survey which asked people to report the date, age, and vaccine status of the people who died who they had the tightest relationship with. You could report as many deaths as you wanted for people you PERSONALLY knew, but if you didn’t report them all, start with the person closest to you. All deaths should be reported no matter what the cause of the death. If they died after December 1, 2020, report it.

The first 1,700+ results are in and Joel Smalley had time to do the analysis. It is stunning. The conclusion is very clear: nobody under 60 years old should get the vaccine because there is no evidence of a benefit. In fact, if you are between 40-60, it’s clear that vaccination makes it more likely you’ll die, not less likely. It’s statistically significant. The result that the younger you are, the less sense it makes, is consistent with what pretty much everyone has been saying.

The only thing that surprised me in the analysis is that data showed that if you are 60 and older, getting vaccinated reduces your chance of dying.

I’m astonished by the data showing a benefit for >60 because it is inconsistent with the VAERS data (which is off the charts showing nearly 500,000 deaths), embalmer data, and this article about 6 elderly deaths in Palo Alto out of 9 people vaccinated, and medicare data, and UK ONS data. I’m confident of the embalmer data and Palo Alto deaths: there is absolutely no way if the vaccine was protective that those events could occur. This means there must be an error in the analysis or confounding of...

The White House harshly criticized Amazon founder Jeff Bezos after he went on the offensive against President Joe Biden in a series of tweets in recent days to slam the White House’s approach to inflation and taxing wealthy corporations, CNBC reported.

The exchange marked an escalation in a simmering feud between Biden and Bezos as the president has frequently used Amazon as a foil in an attempt to pass legislation for higher taxes on the richest Americans and big companies to help pay for his economic agenda, according to The Hill.

After Bezos charged over the weekend that Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan that he signed into law last year contributed to a sharp rise in prices and that inflation is most harmful to the poor, deputy White House press secretary Andrew Bates responded.

Bates said in a statement that “it doesn’t require a huge leap to figure out why one of the wealthiest individuals on Earth opposes an economic agenda for the middle class that cuts some of the biggest costs families face, fights inflation for the long haul, and adds to the historic deficit reduction the president is achieving by asking the richest taxpayers and corporations to pay their fair share.”

He added that “it’s also unsurprising that this tweet comes after the president met with labor organizers, including Amazon employees.”

In reaction, Bezos on Monday accused the White House of trying to change the subject and again criticized its economic policy, tweeting that “remember the administration tried their best to add another $3.5 TRILLION to federal spending. They failed, but if they had succeeded, inflation would be even higher than it is today, and inflation today is at a...