Hunter Biden trial: Outrage as ex-intel officials double down on claim that first son's laptop has 'all earmarks' of 'Russian operation'

WASHINGTON, DC: Even though Hunter Biden's infamous laptop "has all the classic earmarks" of Russian misinformation, dozens of former intelligence officers who signed the letter are refusing to back down or change their minds, even when the device has been admitted into evidence in his current criminal prosecution, reports Fox News.

Fox News Digital contacted all 51 signatories to the closely examined letter from October 2020, which was released just before the 2020 presidential election, to inquire if they were sorry to sign it in light of the prosecution's use of the laptop to claim Hunter committed a federal firearms violation.

Ex-intel officials double down on signing 'patriotic' letter against Hunter Biden's laptop

James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence under President Obama, only said, "No," refusing to take down his name from the letter or acknowledge that the others who signed it ought to have waited longer for further information to come to light.

Signatories Ronald Marks, Marc Polymeropoulos, Douglas Wise, Paul Kolbe, John Sipher, Emile Nakhleh and Gerald O'Shea are represented by Mark S Zaid. On their behalf, Zaid sent a statement to Fox News Digital emphasizing the significance of the letter and asserting that signing it was "patriotic."

Zaid, who once posted online that Trump's election was "very scary," said in a statement, "There continues to be by many a calculated or woefully ignorant interpretation of the October 2020 letter signed by fifty-one former intelligence officials concerning Hunter Biden's laptop."

He added, "A careful and objective reading of the document reflects that even today its content is accurate. It served as nothing more than a warning letter of what we have known for decades: certain foreign governments – including Russia – continue to try and actively interfere in our domestic affairs and our guard must remain vigilant. Every patriotic American should have signed that letter."

In a statement to Fox News Digital, signatory Greg Treverton, a former head of the National Intelligence Council, defended the letter and said, "This is very old news. What we said was true, we were inferring from our experience, and it did look like a Russian operation. We didn't, and couldn't of course say it was a Russian operation. Enough said."

Before explaining several reasons why the laptop is "consistent" with Russian disinformation, the letter stated, "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 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."

Internet slams ex-intel officials over 'patriotic' letter against Hunter Biden's laptop

Many internet users ripped ex-intel officials as they doubled down on signing a "patriotic" letter against Hunter Biden's laptop. 

Some online comments read, "These people committed a crime. If I made a false statement or tampered with evidence, I would be in jail. I can only assume that the Bidens are not equal under the law" and "They said it was patriotic on their part to sign the letter. They call lying, interfering in election is patriotic. Then they claim that protesting against fraudulent election, as people understood at that time, is not patriotic, but insurgence."

Another person wrote, "How many of them examined the laptop to make that determination? They must face the consequences for election interference" while one added, "The leadership of this country has been taken over by racketeers. The taxpaying citizens just work to pay while the leaders (and celebrity influencers) commit crimes with impunity."

Another comment read, "When Trump is reelected in November I want to see every one of these people tried for election interference."

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.