Did the FBI & "Silent about Hunter's Laptop" Bill Barr Steal the Election & "Undermine our National Security"?
William Briggs explained how the "FBI Lied To Facebook, Twitter, Etc.":
So the regime’s secret police lied to Facebook, Twitter, and surely others (like Google), and said it would be in Facebook’s and the others’ best interest to censor a regime-harming story.
Which Facebook, Twitter, etc. did.
The FBI called the truth of Hunter’s laptop “misinformation” or “disinformation”, necessitating the regime calling a falsity an Official Truth...
... What’s interesting about today’s revelations, which are indeed not revelations at all to those on our side, is what will happen to them.
That is, this is all happening as I write. It remains to be seen what the regime media will say or do about Zuckerberg’s comments. Perhaps deny them, and label those who speak of them “disinformation spreaders.” More likely—and I’m just guessing—they will just dismiss and ignore them as “unimportant” and wait for them to be washed away in the next tide of propaganda. [https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/41856/]
Also, The Epoch Times reported on how the FBI lies and Bill Barr’s silence "decisively interfered in the election" and undermined the national security:
During his recent interview, Barr conceded that he knew that letter from our nation’s intelligence officials “was baseless” and that he believed Biden himself fully understood that it “was a lie.” Unlike Trump, Biden was citing published claims by intelligence officials that Barr now says he knew to be inaccurate at the time those claims were made. But, in contrast to his earlier actions regarding Trump’s tweets, Barr chose to stay silent on Biden’s claims.
In doing so, Barr decisively interfered in the election through his inaction.
The sharply differing stances that Barr took in those months preceding the 2020 presidential election are puzzlingly contradictory. Barr apparently felt that it was necessary to make sure that U.S. citizens were aware that Biden wasn’t under investigation as a part of Durham’s probe, but he didn’t feel it was important to counter a false narrative from former intelligence officials, including four CIA directors, that Barr knew to be untrue.
At the time of that second presidential debate, the FBI already had Hunter’s laptop in its possession—and had held the device for 10 months. The FBI had also opened an investigation into Hunter Biden for multiple offenses—including allegations of money laundering and possible violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Hunter’s laptop contained emails and other information that were directly connected to these allegations.
Barr’s differing treatment of Biden and Trump leaves many questions unanswered. Although many in the media, along with then-Biden spokeswoman Jen Psaki, have asserted that Hunter is a private citizen who wasn’t running for office, Hunter’s laptop directly implicated Joe Biden in a number of dubious foreign dealings. Biden repeatedly lied about these matters while on the campaign trail.
In one particularly notable instance, Biden had personally met with Hunter’s Ukrainian business partner only a few months before that same partner demanded that Hunter end the investigations into Burisma, the Ukrainian energy firm that was paying Hunter $1 million per year. On the campaign trail, Biden declared that he had never talked to his son about his foreign business dealings.
Not only did Barr choose to remain silent about Hunter’s laptop, but he had also, in fact, “instructed prosecutors and senior colleagues to prevent word of investigations into Hunter Biden from becoming public and keep the Justice Department out of campaign politics,” according to sources cited by The Wall Street Journal.
The silence from Barr enabled the media’s blackout on the laptop story that had direct ramifications on the 2020 election. A poll by Media Research showed that 45 percent of the Biden voters were unaware of the allegations against Hunter and Joe Biden and that 16 percent of Biden voters–well over the margin of victory–wouldn’t have voted for him had they known this crucial information.
In 2016, the Hillary Clinton campaign accused Russia of trying to help elect Trump. Then-CIA Director John Brennan played an important role in advancing the Clinton campaign’s narrative. In an eerie parallel to those events, the Biden campaign, again with the help of Brennan and other intelligence officials, falsely accused Russia of trying to help elect Trump in 2020.
Barr argues in his book that Trump’s claims about Biden required Barr to insert himself because he didn’t want a repeat of the Russia collusion claims that plagued the 2016 election; that same argument, however, should have required Barr to speak out on Biden’s debate claims that Hunter’s laptop was a Russian plot.
If Barr was truly concerned about a potential repeat of the 2016 election, it would have been incumbent on him to step forward publicly as soon as Biden made his false accusations against Russia, particularly given the involvement of Brennan, who was himself entangled in the 2016 election interference.
The national security implications from Biden’s repeated invocations
of Russia is another important factor that should have required Barr to
Pundit reported that, Donald Trump's apparent controlled opposition,
former Attorney General Bill Barr told "Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer to Stop
Truck Driver Jesse Morgan’s Testimony That He Moved More Than 200,000
Fraudulent Ballots from NY to PA Before the 2020 Election."
Here are some headlines indicating that Barr may be controlled opposition for the FBI and the Joe Biden Deep State team: