More on the Israeli hostage rescue and lethal journalism

The New Neo Posted on by

The term “lethal journalism” was coined by Richard Landes, who also came up with the moniker “Pallywood”:

Rigorous fact checking, the attempt to move as close to objective journalism as possible, and non-compliance with trite framing (Israeli Goliath versus the Palestinian David, to cite Landes) are abandoned once many foreign correspondents arrive in Israel. The medievalist historian Landes asserts that many journalists report “Palestinian claims (lethal narratives) as reliable until proven otherwise, while treating Israeli counterclaims as dubious, if not false, until proven true.” …

From a journalist’s perspective, Landes has penned one of the most authoritative books on the collapse of journalism in its coverage of Israel and Palestinians.

He’s been saying all of this for over twenty years, not just post-10/7. Journalism has become “lethal” to Jews and to Israel – and even to Palestinians, to the extent that it gives Hamas a pass for purposely sheltering among them in order to maximize their deaths, stealing from them, indoctrinating them, and often directly murdering them as well. In a future post I hope to take up the reasons I think journalism has become so obviously lethal, but for now I’ll put that aside and simply say it has become even more clear since 10/7 that that is the case.

The rest of this post is a roundup of news around the hostage rescue. I say “rescue” because the lethal journalists at CNN would have you think they were released. Oh well, they’re both words that begin with “re,” right?

And the august BBC has a brilliant question – why didn’t Israel warn the Gazans about the rescue operation? You cannot make this stuff up, but the BBC reporter can:

Among other things – in the gunfight that ensued, it is highly possible not only that many of the dead (most?) were Hamas gunman, but that many of the actual civilians killed (whatever the number) were killed by Hamas shooters, having been caught in the crossfire. We simply don’t know and cannot know at this point, but that doesn’t stop the press from reporting the numbers of people supposedly killed by Israel according to Hamas, and often featuring those numbers in headlines without challenging their veracity.

I want to add some very sad news about the father of one of the hostages. Very sad – he died of an apparent cardiovascular event just hours before the news came out of his son’s release. Some say he died of the stress of his son’s captivity and a broken heart about it, and that’s not hard to believe.

Back to the hostage rescue and the coverage thereof, from Jim Treacher:

Have you ever had one of those days?

You’re just sitting at home minding your own business, guarding the Israeli hostages your Hamas buddies kidnapped after their bloody rampage on October 7. Then, all of a sudden, for no reason whatsoever, a bunch of Zionists bust in and kill you. A lot of you. Hundreds of you, if your terrorist comrades are to be believed.

And for what? Why did so many people need to die just for four Jews? Aren’t your lives important too?

That’s what Hamas supporters are feeling today, because they’re evil idiots.

Can’t argue with that.

And if the word “journalist” comes after the modifier “Palestinian,” it needs to be in scare quotes:

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on Sunday confirmed that three of the four hostages rescued in the recent raid were held at the house of a Gaza ‘journalist.’

Abdallah Aljamal, a Hamas terrorist, posed as a journalist and has written for several media outlets in the past, including Qatari state-owned Al Jazeera.

“Following the completion of [Israeli military and security agency Shin Bet] agency and ISA examinations of reports on the subject, it can be confirmed that Abdallah Aljamal was an operative in the Hamas terrorist organization, who held the hostages Almog Meir Jan, Andrey Kozlov, and Shlomi Ziv captive in his family home in Nuseirat,” the IDF disclosed Sunday.

“The hostages were held captive by Abdallah Aljamal and members of his family in their home,” the IDF statement added.

Apparently his father was a doctor and lived there as well. I use the past tense because they may have been killed during the rescue operation – at least, according to Hamas-friendly sources at EuroMed, a Geneva-based NGO:

“The army immediately executed 36-year-old Fatima Al-Jamal upon encountering her on the staircase. The forces then stormed the house and executed her husband, journalist Abdullah Al-Jamal, 36, and his father, Dr. Ahmed, 74, in front of his grandchildren. The army also shot their daughter, Zainab, 27, who sustained serious injuries.”

Keeping hostages is a war crime. And I also wonder whether any of these people were armed and shooting when they met their demise, or whether the story of their manner of death is even true. Also impossible to say at this point.

The Israeli troops rescuing the hostages met with fierce resistance at various points; their commander Arnon Zamora was killed in the firefight. This describes what kind of a man Zamora was.

Here’s another rumor, possibly true: some of the Israeli rescuers dressed as Arab civilians to gain access. Of course, some Israel-haters find fault with that – probably the same ones who say that Israel should have given warning of what it was about to do.

Biden of course seems to think all of this calls for a ceasefire.

And a UN official thinks Israel’s hostage rescue showed “genocidal intent”:

Former peace envoy Dennis Ross said it best today: “The world is upside down when there are those who criticize the Israelis for rescuing their kidnapped hostages. Hamas fires on them, trying to kill those being rescued and their rescuers. The IDF fires on Hamas and civilians get killed. Why is it so hard for some to blame Hamas?” Ms. Albanese, the truth is that no one has encouraged Hamas terrorism more than you. Abusing your UN title, you infamously told Hamas terrorists at their 2022 Conference: “You have a right to resist.” You bear responsibility for encouraging Hamas to attack.

As a UN expert, you should be condemning Hamas for shooting at the hostages and firing rocket-propelled grenades as they tried to escape. You should commend the Israeli officers who shielded the hostages with their bodies to try to protect them. As some brave Palestinians have done today, you should condemn Hamas for deliberately placing hostages in the center of a residential area, and for firing from among civilians today, using them as human shields.

Caroline Glick has a few things to say about all of this, too:

Also:

Israel is the only country on earth that would be criticized for such an operation. I take that back – I think the US would be criticized as well, if the commander-in-chief at the time was named Donald Trump.

ADDENDUM:

Here’s quite a pernicious little CNN video. As it shows footage of the hostages being greeted by families and friends, it simultaneously features a series of scrolling chyrons that indicate suspicion of Israeli accounts and suggest that actually these hostages were probably treated well. “Treated well” together with “hostage” is an oxymoron, however. I’m sure that some hostages were treated somewhat less horribly than others, but that has nothing to do with the fact that being taken hostage is by definition being treated abominably and abusively, and subjects the captive to almost unimaginable stress:

One of the comments I saw at another video about the hostages was this one: “Palestinian gave their life to protect those hostages, even if they don’t have enough to eat, but look those hostages still look fresh and healthy.”

And note how ABC manages to emphasize the negative:

More and more people in France, Belgium, and Germany aren’t buying what the globalists are selling

The New Neo Posted on by

Or rather, they’re not buying what the globalists are trying to force down their throats.

The result of EU elections in France was that Marine Le Pen’s party eclipsed that of Emmanuel Macron, and the latter has called for a snap General Assembly election:

French President Emmanuel Macron is going for broke, calling for a snap election that is likely to deliver big wins for the far right. But it may also knock Le Pen off her stride as she eyes the bigger prize: the presidency in 2027.

That is the maverick gamble that the French president is making after the National Rally’s spectacular win on Sunday evening. The far-right, anti-migration party is projected to win the European election in France with 32 percent of the vote — more than twice that of the president’s centrist liberal party.

These are the designations you read all the time – Le Pen and her party are not just right but far right – I assume for wanting to limit the flow of “migrants”? And Macron is a centrist – I suppose because he’s not a socialist? European politics is quite different from our own – and I’m certainly not an expert on the former. But the gist of what’s going on with Macron seems to be that he believes he’ll do better in the General Assembly election because the rules are different:

As Brussels is viewed as a very distant concern, the European election is usually where the protest vote is expressed most strongly. In contrast, the legislative election is a two-round vote — on June 30 and July 7 — that historically favors more traditional parties, as voters from the left and the right usually rally round the more mainstream candidate to beat the far right.

That’s what happened in 2022. Macron is betting it will happen again. And this is how he characterizes the forces on the right:

The rise of nationalists and demagogues is a danger for our nation and for Europe.

For the left in the US and in Europe, the word “nationalist” is a pejorative. And “demagogues” are the nasty ones on the other side – the right – as well. The root of the word is of interest, however:

When the ancient Greeks used demagogós (from dêmos, meaning “people,” and -agogos, “leading”) they meant someone good — a leader who used outstanding oratorical skills to further the interests of the common people.

Later, it became used with the implication that such a person appealed to the common folk in emotional way: “a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.” In other words, a populist spreading disinformation. Not like those lofty, truth-telling, intellectual, leftist globalists who are above such sordid interests as nationalism.

In Belgium, the Prime Minister has resigned. And in other countries:

You could say that Trump was ahead of his times. But I don’t know whether this trend can be sustained. One thing I do know is that I trust the safety and security of the election process in these European countries more than I trust it here.

Britain seems to be an outlier – expected to move further to the left in its July election. But – as I recently heard Melanie Phillips say – the Conservative Party in Britain has proven itself to be quite globalist as well these days.

Griffin Dunne’s memoir sounds interesting

The New Neo Posted on by

Who’s Griffin Dunne?, you might ask. He’s an actor I first became familiar with from the Scorcese film “After Hours.” I saw it in a movie theater when it first came out in 1985, and I think that although the word “quirky” serves as a descriptor, it doesn’t even begin to cover how strangely entertaining the film is. Dunne is no conventional leading man, either; he’s a hapless and confused character on the edge of desperation, and yet he manages to make the role bleakly comic as well.

More recently, Dunne surfaced playing another quirky (there’s that word again) character in the very popular TV series “This Is Us.” He grabbed my attention in that one, too, all these years later.

Griffin Dunne’s memoir isn’t the usual Hollywood tell-all stuff either. He came from a famous and literary family, marked by tragedy but also quite loving:

The black comedic vignettes of Dunne’s memoir, befitting a Nathanael West novel, feature the ascendant, fallen, and broken stars of an era when celluloid was still currency. Dunne was “raised in the land of make-believe,” he writes—first in New York, where Elizabeth Montgomery, a struggling actress before she played Samantha in Bewitched, was his babysitter, and then in Los Angeles, where Sean Connery saved him from drowning in a pool. (“A wee bit early for the deep end, sonny,” said James Bond.)

Dunne’s cinephilic and literary family made possible these early Tinseltown encounters. His parents, Dominick and Ellen (Lenny) Dunne, were Hollywood’s mid-sixties “‘it’ couple, invited to every party and hosting their own, big and small,” including a black and white ball that inspired one attendee, Truman Capote, to throw his own more famous one, in 1966. His uncle John Gregory Dunne married the up-and-coming writer Joan Didion; it was at their home that Dunne saw the W-shaped palm trees from a favorite childhood movie, It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, and assisted a young carpenter, Harrison Ford, in building their deck.

Much much more at the link. His sister Dominique was murdered by an abusive boyfriend, and there was a sensational trial which his father wrote about for Vanity Fair. Interestingly, although I hadn’t yet read the piece about Griffin Dunne when I wrote my post today about Dershowitz and OJ, there are some coincidental tie-ins: the article about Griffin’s book says that his father covered the OJ trial for Vanity Fair, and also that in the trial of his daughter’s murderer Sweeney, “Dunne’s father managed to hate the defense attorney ‘even more than he hated Sweeney.’” I think that, as the father of the victim, he can be forgiven that sentiment.

Here’s a little clip from “After Hours” – it doesn’t do it justice, but it will suffice. I highly recommend the film itself:

Here’s a link to Griffin Dunne’s memoir at Amazon.

Facebook post by supposed Trump juror’s relative – what might happen

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a potential bombshell in the Trump hush money trial:

The judge presiding over former President Trump’s New York criminal trial notified his defense team on Friday of a comment on the court’s public Facebook page that implies one of the jurors discussed the guilty verdict ahead of time.

Fox News obtained the letter Judge Juan Merchan shared with Trump defense attorneys and Manhattan prosecutors.

“‘Today, the Court became aware of a comment that was posted on the Unified Court System’s public Facebook page and which I now bring to your attention. In the comment, the user, ‘Michael Anderson,’ states:

“’My cousin is a juror and says Trump is getting convicted! Thank you folks for all your hard work!!!!’”

The profile for “Michael Anderson” has little publicly available information, but the user identifies himself as a “Transabled & professional sh– poster.”

A Trump campaign official told Fox News Digital they are “investigating the matter.”

There are many things that can be said about this, but the first that comes to mind for me is that “Michael Anderson” didn’t speak to any jurors and is just – as he or she indicates – “shit posting.” A troublemaking troll, in other words. That is actually my leading theory at this point.

The next thing that comes to mind is the outrageous fact that this jury wasn’t sequestered. So the door was opened for such a discussion to have occurred in an incredibly important case, and/or for the jurors to have read or heard the news and/or social media and seen what was being said about the trial. It could have easily been prevented, but it wasn’t.

The next thing that occurs to me is that, if in fact “Michael Anderson” is actually a juror’s cousin (which I tend to doubt), they’ll probably find a way around it. They’ll interview him or her and get the answer that it was just a joke and that no such discussion ever occurred. They’ll interview the juror, who will say the same thing. They’ll interview other jurors and they’ll agree that the verdict wasn’t a foregone conclusion and everyone was as objective as objective could be.

But the next thing that occurs to me is that the Democrats are probably a mite perturbed that the verdict doesn’t seem to have damaged Trump as much as they’d hoped and expected. They may even want to take the opportunity to back away from it and pretend the whole thing never happened. They might see doing so as a way to establish their fairness bona fides: “See, even though Trump is obviously guilty, we want to protect the process and the rule of law by starting over.” They might even wait till after the election, to take away Trump’s claim to martyrdom. I think this approach is unlikely but possible.

As I indicated, I think this whole matter will end up being inconsequential.

Defending OJ

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “Miguel cervantes” writes:

Oj was the killer i still hold dershowitz responsible for letting him get away well theres one other member of the defense team still alive barry (something or other)

But Dershowitz was only marginally related to the OJ case: he acted as appellate advisor to the defense team in case OJ was found guilty and an appeal was necessary. OJ was acquitted, so no appeal was necessary.

But looking to the larger issue of the role of defense attorneys, the best ones – and Dershowitz is one of the best – operate out of allegiance to a major tenet of our legal system: that everyone is entitled to a defense. Opposing that principle undermines the related concept that everyone is entitled to a fair trial and that all defendants should be given a presumption of innocence.

I don’t think you can have it both ways. Either you believe in those principles or you don’t. It is highly tempting to say, when faced with an outrageous case in which you are certain the defendant is guilty, that the person doesn’t deserve a good defense and that any attorney willing to defend that person is heinous. But I strongly disagree with that sentiment. The idea that every person is entitled to a defense is absolutely central.

You or I may not wish to be the one to defend that person. No one will force us to do so. But someone had better do it. Dershowitz is willing to be the one, and I salute him for it.

Wonderful news: Israel rescues four hostages

The New Neo Posted on by

Here are some of the details:

The mission was conducted in broad daylight and in an area where Israeli forces had not previously operated.

The operation to rescue Noa Argamani, 26, Almog Meir Jan, 21, Andrey Kozlov, 27, and Shlomi Ziv, 41 was planned out weeks in advance, according to information seen by The Times of Israel. Known originally as “Seeds of Summer,” its name was changed after the event to “Operation Arnon” after Yamam officer Chief Inspector Arnon Zamora, who was critically wounded by Hamas fire amid the rescue of three of the hostages and later died of his wounds.

During the planning period, intelligence on the hostages’ locations was obtained and studied. Amid the war, Hamas has repeatedly moved hostages around Gaza, in an attempt to prevent Israeli rescue operations.

In the days leading up to the rescue, the police’s elite Yamam counter-terrorism unit drilled various models of the extraction from central Gaza’s Nuseirat, which military officials said were “similar to the Entebbe raid” of 1976, when Israeli commandos rescued more than 100 hostages in Uganda

One huge difference was that in Entebbe, the 106 hostages (102 were rescued) had only been held from the 27th of June till the 4th of July. Even more importantly, it was well-known where they were located in Uganda, and they were all together (except for one who had been removed to a hospital and was subsequently murdered on the orders of Idi Amin). And lastly, there were no civilians around, Gazan or otherwise, except the hostages. Tragically – as in the current operation – one Israeli military member died. In Entebbe, it was Netanyahu’s older brother Yonatan.

More on the current hostage rescue:

The buildings were about 200 meters apart, and the decision to go for both simultaneously was due to the possibility that Hamas may murder the hostages after identifying the rescue operation at the other location.

Argamani was held by Hamas guards alone in the home of a Palestinian family, while the other three hostages were held at a separate home, also with guards. According to the IDF, Hamas pays such families to hold the hostages in their houses. (Meir Jan said on his release that he, Kozlov and Ziv were held together throughout their eight months in captivity, in a total of four homes, Channel 12 reported on Saturday night.)

Argamani’s rescue was described by military officials as relatively smooth considering the circumstances. But a major gun battle erupted at the home where Meir Jan, Kozlov, and Ziv were held.

All four hostages had been taken from the NOVA music festival. Argamani’s name and face are probably more familiar to you than those of the others. She is the beautiful young woman who was videoed shrieking in terror as she was hauled off to Gaza. Her mother (of Chinese ethnicity) is dying of a terminal brain tumor, and has said that her one wish has been to see her daughter again before she dies. They have been reunited, but I don’t know her mother’s condition and she is apparently in a hospital. I deeply hope her mother was conscious and aware enough to fully savor the glorious moment. Her father certainly was; there are heartwarming photos and videos of their reunion.

All the hostages look well.

Note that all the hostages were held in the homes of civilians. What does “civilians” mean in that context? I have little doubt these are either Hamas members or trusted Hamas sympathizers.

More:

According to the IDF, the rescue forces faced a massive amount of gunfire and RPG fire in Nuseirat, leading the ground troops and the Israeli Air Force to carry out major strikes in the area.

The strikes, targeting the areas from where Hamas operatives were opening fire, were aimed at protecting the rescue forces and the hostages.

Hamas’s government media office said at least 210 people were killed amid the operation.

The IDF acknowledged that it killed Palestinian civilians amid the fighting, but it placed the blame on Hamas for holding hostages and fighting in a dense civilian environment.

“We know about under 100 [Palestinian] casualties. I don’t know how many of them are terrorists,” IDF Spokesman Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari said in a briefing with journalists, reported by Reuters.

My guess is that most of them were terrorists. But to the extent that there were civilian casualties, it’s obvious that all such casualties are the fault of Hamas. Hamas started the war. Hamas took the hostages. Hamas kept them, despite many very generous exchange offers by Israel. Most importantly of all, Hamas put them in civilian homes surrounded by civilians. Every drop of blood spilled is on their hands.

Ah, but as usual, Hamas and the PA want the world to blame Israel:

Hamas officials claimed over 210 Palestinians were killed during the airstrikes, including women and children, but did not include how many of the casualties were terrorists. …

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas called the operation at the Nuseirat refugee camp a “bloody massacre” and called for an emergency UN Security Council session to address the events, the PA’s official news agency WAFA said.

Somehow I don’t think this particular Palestinian charge will get as much traction as previous ones. But nothing would surprise me.

Many more photos at the link. All of Israel and all of Israel’s friends are rejoicing this day.

NOTE: I will add that this proves what I have consistently claimed, which is that a significant number of hostages are probably still alive. The reason is that the hostages represent a “get out of jail free” card to Hamas, a bargaining chip of great price. I have no idea how many are alive and how many dead, because dead hostages also are of great value to Hamas. But living hostages are worth more to them.

ADDENDUM: More details here.

Books on jurisprudence and on critical legal studies

The New Neo Posted on by

In one of yesterday’s posts I wrote that jurisprudence was my favorite subject way back in law school. A commenter named “William Nelson” asked me if I could recommend a book on the subject.

I confess that the last time I read a book on jurisprudence it was while I was in law school. So the book I’m recommending is quite old, to say the least. But I see that it’s still considered a classic. The book is Lon Fuller’s The Morality of Law.

While I’m at it, I’m going to highly recommend another book, one I read many years after leaving law school – but still, many years ago. It’s a work from the 1990s that describes the alarming rise of Critical Legal Studies and the ways in which it has affected legal training and the practice of law in general. It’s called Beyond All Reason: The Radical Assault on Truth In American Law. It’s incredible to read it and realize that all of this was already quite clear in 1997, when the book first came out. By the way, it was written by two apparently liberal law professors (Daniel A. Farber and Suzanna Sherry) rather than by anyone on the right.

Biden seems to think that stopping a full-scale operation in Rafah would be something to brag about

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s Biden’s brag:

Asked in an interview with ABC News whether he thinks Netanyahu is listening to him, Biden responded, “I think he’s listening to me.”

“They were going to go into Rafah full bore — invade all of Rafah, go into the city, take it out, move with full force. They haven’t done that,” Biden said.

Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have insisted that the IDF operate in Rafah to eliminate the remaining Hamas battalions held up in the city, resisting international pressure against such an incursion.

Asked whether he thinks Netanyahu will stick by the hostage deal proposal Israel submitted last week, Biden said, “He’s publicly said he is. Our European friends are in on it. We have to get a ceasefire.”

I doubt this will placate implacable jihadists in Michigan. That’s part of Biden’s goal, although not his only goal (and by the way – yes, I realize there are plenty of people behind Biden urging him on, but I believe he has some agency as well and that ever since being Obama’s VP he has shared Obama’s goals for the Middle East). I believe Biden is carrying on the Obama plan to empower Iran in the region, and also to curry favor with the Israel-hating “international community.”

But even on the face of it, what’s so great about a ceasefire? There was a ceasefire in place on October 7 and the Gazans violated it. A ceasefire only has one meaning, because only one side respects it: to hamstring Israel and stop it from finishing off Hamas.

Does Biden have a clue how many hostages are alive, or who they might be? I highly doubt it. Nor does anyone else except Hamas, and even they might not know where all of them are.

What’s so special about Rafah, and why would Biden want to protect it? See this:

In the lead up to the Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) operation to destroy Hamas and secure the release of over 100 hostages – including 8 Americas – believed to be in and around Rafah, leaders around the world from Joe Biden to the collective leftist leaders of the European Union to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi panicked and ordered Israel to forestall its necessary means to end the war. …

On the IDF’s first day of entry into Rafah in mid-May they discovered hundreds of tunnels with over 50 two-way underground tunnels between Rafah and Egypt. Dozens more cross-border tunnels have been discovered since, along the Rafah-Egypt border. Some tunnels were paved and wide enough for passage of full-sized cargo trucks. …

Egypt built a formidable border wall, something Donald Trump could not even imagine in a fever dream for America. It is impenetrable, militarized, and closely guarded with Egyptian troops and security forces. The way through it for Gazans seeking to get out of Gaza? Baksheesh. Upwards of $5,000 per person. It has also been a gateway for international aid and smuggling into Gaza resulting in over $88 million in profit to the holder of the border keys.

The article goes on to say that the holder of these keys is very tight with Egyptian President al-Sisi’s son.

What is becoming obvious is that there were a lot of reasons for Egypt and America to want Israel to remain outside of Rafah. The secrets that will be revealed through the IDF’s operations may well surprise the civilized world as Israel fights to defeat the barbarians.

Much of the “civilized world,” however, is so civilized that it doesn’t even seem to realize that it has an interest in seeing Hamas defeated by Israel.

Biden election interference, 2020: the Hunter laptop disinformation campaign by the left

The New Neo Posted on by

At the same time the intelligence community was spreading the word that the Hunter Biden laptop was likely to be disinformation, it knew full well that the laptop was Hunter’s and everything on it was real and not “Russian disinformation” at all. It was an Orwellian full court press by the left, the media, and the intelligence community to lie about all of this and pull Biden across the finish line. And it worked.

I repeat – not only does the intelligence community and the FBI now know that the laptop is authentic, but they knew it back then. They did not want Trump re-elected, and so they smeared him, and the MSM dutifully followed.

Later, the plan was to settle Hunter’s gun application case and give him immunity for all crimes, but an alert judge in Delaware noticed the unusual global immunity deal and wouldn’t let that stand. That mean the case went forward, and in court the prosecutors have said the laptop is real, is Hunter’s, and is admissible evidence and not “Russian disinformation” at all – just as Trump and Giuliani always said.

Most Americans probably aren’t aware of this history. They might know now that the laptop is real, but they may not know that the intelligence community knew it was real while peddling the idea that it was false. To refresh your memory, from last July:

On July 17, 2023, the House Judiciary Committee and Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government conducted a transcribed interview of Laura Dehmlow, the Section Chief of the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF). During her transcribed interview, Dehmlow revealed that the same FBI personnel who were warning social media companies about a potential Russian “hack and leak” operation in the run-up to the 2020 election knew that the laptop belonging to Hunter Biden was not Russian disinformation. After the New York Post broke a story based on the contents of the laptop about Biden family influence peddling, the FBI made the institutional decision to refuse to answer direct questions from social media companies about the laptop’s authenticity—despite months of constant information sharing up to that time. Put simply, after the FBI conditioned social media companies to believe that the laptop was the product of a hack-and-dump operation, the Bureau stopped its information sharing, allowing social media companies to conclude that the New York Post story was Russian disinformation. …

The FBI made this decision despite being in possession of the laptop and having confirmed its authenticity. According to Dehmlow, multiple personnel on FITF knew that the laptop was real. …

The FBI’s failure to alert social-media companies that the Hunter Biden laptop was real, and not mere Russian disinformation, is particularly troubling. The FBI had the laptop in their possession since December 2019 and had warned social-media companies to look for a “hack and dump” operation by the Russians prior to the 2020 election. Even after Facebook specifically asked whether the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation, Dehmlow of the FBI refused to comment, resulting in the social-media companies’ suppression of the story. As a result, millions of U.S. citizens did not hear the story prior to the November 3, 2020 election.

It wasn’t difficult to authenticate the laptop. It was easy.

So, here’s another video you might call to the attention of your friends:

NOTE: More on the sordid stories coming out during the Hunter Biden trial can be found here.