Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

583

The New York Times has confirmed what the public has long-known: that the Hunter Biden laptop, with all its incriminating e-mails and scandalous media, is authentic.

This is the laptop that launched a thousand lies.

The lies came from CNN’s Brian Stelter, who claimed the “real story” wasn’t the laptop (which he suggested was Russian disinformation), but the how the story was manufactured.

Then there were the lies from Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes, who argued that the Hunter Biden laptop “can’t be verified.” Not that verification could or could not happen – but that it was impossible.

The lies also came from the New York Times, which called the Hunter Biden information “unsubstantiated.”

In truth, the laptop and its contents are very real, very damaging, and suggest – if not outright prove – criminal conduct by Hunter Biden. While the focus of this article is on the intelligence community and its operations on American soil, let me write briefly on the potential for criminal charges against Hunter Biden.

The New York Times is a bit off-target when it suggests that the DOJ has an uphill battle in charging Hunter Biden for violation of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (RFRA). The New York Times sates:

But there has been debate within the Justice Department over whether the available evidence proves that Mr. Biden intended to violate FARA, which the government must prove in order to secure a criminal conviction.

I think that misstates the law. To support a FARA conviction against Hunter Biden, the DOJ would only need to prove:

Generally, that Hunter Biden acted as an agent (including activities such as political advocacy or public relations) of a foreign principal;

And that Hunter Biden failed to register with the Attorney General.

Then there’s violations of Section 951 (similar to FARA), which require a showing:

That Hunter Biden acted in the U.S. as an agent of a foreign government;

That Hunter Biden failed to notify the U.S. Attorney General that he was acting as an agent of a foreign government (before said action took place); and

That Hunter Biden knowingly agreed to operated within the U.S. subject to the direction or control of a foreign government or official; and that he knew he had not provided prior notification to the Attorney General.

Intelligence Operations against Americans

Anyways, back to the lies about Hunter Biden that helped influence an election. These weren’t limited to the usual suspects in media: Stelter, CNN, etc. Instead, we saw them from more than 50 former senior intelligence officials, from directors of the CIA to directors of the National Security Agency, who accused the damaging Hunter Biden information of being part of a Russian effort to interfere “in our democracy.”

The New York Times has confirmed what the public has long-known: that the Hunter Biden laptop, with all its incriminating e-mails and scandalous media, is authentic. This is the laptop that launched a thousand lies. The lies came from CNN’s Brian Stelter, who claimed the “real story” wasn’t the laptop (which he suggested was Russian disinformation), but the how the story was manufactured. Then there were the lies from Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes, who argued that the Hunter Biden laptop “can’t be verified.” Not that verification could or could not happen – but that it was impossible. The lies also came from the New York Times, which called the Hunter Biden information “unsubstantiated.” In truth, the laptop and its contents are very real, very damaging, and suggest – if not outright prove – criminal conduct by Hunter Biden. While the focus of this article is on the intelligence community and its operations on American soil, let me write briefly on the potential for criminal charges against Hunter Biden. The New York Times is a bit off-target when it suggests that the DOJ has an uphill battle in charging Hunter Biden for violation of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (RFRA). The New York Times sates: But there has been debate within the Justice Department over whether the available evidence proves that Mr. Biden intended to violate FARA, which the government must prove in order to secure a criminal conviction. I think that misstates the law. To support a FARA conviction against Hunter Biden, the DOJ would only need to prove: Generally, that Hunter Biden acted as an agent (including activities such as political advocacy or public relations) of a foreign principal; And that Hunter Biden failed to register with the Attorney General. Then there’s violations of Section 951 (similar to FARA), which require a showing: That Hunter Biden acted in the U.S. as an agent of a foreign government; That Hunter Biden failed to notify the U.S. Attorney General that he was acting as an agent of a foreign government (before said action took place); and That Hunter Biden knowingly agreed to operated within the U.S. subject to the direction or control of a foreign government or official; and that he knew he had not provided prior notification to the Attorney General. Intelligence Operations against Americans Anyways, back to the lies about Hunter Biden that helped influence an election. These weren’t limited to the usual suspects in media: Stelter, CNN, etc. Instead, we saw them from more than 50 former senior intelligence officials, from directors of the CIA to directors of the National Security Agency, who accused the damaging Hunter Biden information of being part of a Russian effort to interfere “in our democracy.”

(post is archived)