Talk:Public statement on the Hunter Biden emails

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

Updated Context?

This article seems to have died in 2020, and doesn't even have a hint as to resolution. Were they correct? Is the "jury still out"?

There seem to be two arguments here, "Was the laptop and/or its release russian disinfo?" If not, then "Did it have: '...all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.'?".

This wikipedia article implies the statement only claimed the latter; however, regardless of the actual contents of the letter, the title of the reliable source article from politico is: "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say". This is also the argument used by Mr. Biden during his 2020 campaign: "there are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he's accusing me of is a Russian plan.".

As the NYT points out, "Three years later, no concrete evidence has emerged to confirm the assertion that the laptop contained Russian disinformation, and portions of its content have been verified as authentic." https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/us/politics/republicans-hunter-biden-laptop.html

The signors have since provided testimony, and made public statements that may add to this article and bring it up to date. Additionally, both the ruling and opposition parties have made statements and reports that may support or conflict with the premise of this letter. Much of it is within the linked NYT article. I realize I should be bold, but I also know that this is political territory and I am not as aware of the history behind this page as others who edit within this space.

It has since been found that signers of this letter briefed then president Obama as to the facts in this letter not being true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.49.113.17 (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC) Rmosler | ● 16:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources to back your last sentence. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another wonderful datapoint on Valijean 2601:248:C000:147A:9C2B:F174:C6B1:A2C8 (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update the article's title

The current title of this article is too vague. This scandal is most often referred to referencing "51 (sometimes 50) former intelligence officials" in the media. I am proposing changing the title to omething that references the 51 former intelligence officers. I am putting this proposal out there for input before making any changes.--Loltardo (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See: https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-and-the-51-spies-of-2020-hunter-laptop-new-york-post-russia-disinformation-73072839

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/521823-50-former-intelligence-officials-warn-ny-post-story-sounds-like-russian/

Please suggest a title. BTW, Lev Parnas#Congressional testimony seems to confirm these intelligence officials were right. The whole Trump/Giuliani/Parnas operation was fed by Russian intelligence disinformation about the Bidens. Their suspicion was justified. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden signature

It appears that Michael Hayden also signed the letter. I am including his name in the list.

Source: original letter pdf, viewable at https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000 2600:1702:A0:29F0:C0A0:F2BE:DC56:2CD7 (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs serious updating

The lede is horribly incomplete and doesn't include any resolution. Two sources here to update the article:

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence - June 2024, [https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cia-admits-some-signatories-of-hunter-biden-laptop-letter-were-paid-contractors/ar-BB1oVNjs National Review - 2024, and NYT - 2023.

I refuse to even edit this article due to just being an IP editor and this being a contentious article that seems to be watched by a few very experienced editors. I'll leave it at that.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:9007:B762:629B:E54E (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. The article is incredibly misleading as to the timeline.

James Clapper's quote appearing immediately after the sentence noting the release of the Politico article makes it seem like this statement came shortly after the article was released, making Republicans' denial of the article's veracity (vis-a-vis Ratcliffe's clarification) seem like deliberate lying. There is no note that the intelligence officials' rebuke of Biden and the media's constant laundering of the Politico article's wording came months later -- after the election had already taken place. Thomas Fingar's quote being where it is does the same thing -- it suggests that he is referring to Republicans' leveraging it AFTER the election when he is referring to Biden's use of it prior to the election.

These quotes are followed by: "Many Republicans and their allies have since cited the Politico headline to insist the intelligence community had lied for the benefit of Joe Biden in the election weeks later" -- the reader is not given the timeline to know that "weeks later" is referring to a time BEFORE the Intelligence letter's signatories clarified the letter.

The second paragraph needs to be reworked completely in a way that clearly denotes the actual sequence of events. 2601:246:4A80:FE0:6017:E46D:5799:7319 (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ratcliffe vs Schiff

Jibolba, it is important to note:

Ratcliffe had previously made public assertions that contradicted professional intelligence assessments.

"John Ratcliffe Pledged to Stay Apolitical. Then He Began Serving Trump's Political Agenda". The New York Times. October 9, 2020. Archived from the original on April 1, 2022. Retrieved April 1, 2022.

"Donald Trump wants a loyalist as America's top intelligence official". The Economist. No. August 3, 2020. Archived from the original on October 28, 2020. Retrieved October 25, 2020.

"Trump's New Director of National Intelligence Doesn't Understand His Job". Foreign Policy. No. July 16, 2020. July 16, 2020. Archived from the original on November 1, 2020. Retrieved October 25, 2020.</ref>

soibangla (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, could be added to paragraph 2. Jibolba (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]