[blhack]

What do you mean this story hasn't been vetted? One of the major players in the story has gone on record, giving an approximately 45 minute long interview verifying the claims.

The FBI and DNI have also both confirmed the validity of the laptop. How much more "verified" than that would you need?

[ehsankia]

The same FBI claims Giuliani is being used by foreign nations to influence our elections. What's your source?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/giuliani-bi...

[blhack]

The source is the Director of National Intelligence: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/fbi-hunter-...

[af16090]

I don't see anything in that article that indicates that "[t]he FBI and DNI have also both confirmed the validity of the laptop".

From the article:

> Appearing Monday on Fox Business Channel, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said “there is no intelligence that supports” the idea that the purported Hunter Biden laptop and the emails on it “are part of a Russian disinformation campaign.”

Absence of intelligence that the laptop is "part of a Russian disinformation campaign" doesn't mean that the contents of the laptop are genuine. That statement still leaves open a bunch of possibilities including that the contents of the laptop were faked by non-Russians, were faked by the Russians but the US doesn't have intelligence confirming it, etc.

As for the FBI, they say "we have nothing to add" to the DNI's statement and that "the FBI can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any ongoing investigation". Nothing in the FBI's letter says anything about the laptop's contents being genuine.

[seppin]

What he meant to say was: "the FBI has confirmed there is a laptop". They have no commented at all about what's on it, only to say that these emails and salacious photos were being shopped around Ukraine last year and were most likely stolen at a different time.

https://time.com/5902557/hunter-biden-rudy-giuliani-ukraine/

[ModernMech]

Director of National Intelligence a.k.a. Republican Congressman John Ratcliffe. Do you see the problem here?

"John Ratcliffe, then a lawmaker from Texas, promised senators skeptical of his vocal support for President Trump that he would be “entirely apolitical as the director of national intelligence.”

A few months into his tenure, Mr. Ratcliffe has emerged as anything but. He has approved selective declassifications of intelligence that aim to score political points, left Democratic lawmakers out of briefings, accused congressional opponents of leaks, offered Republican operatives top spots in his headquarters and made public assertions that contradicted professional intelligence assessments."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/09/us/politics/john-ratcliff...

Just last week he had the FBI director stand behind him while he ad-libbed about how Iran was attacking our elections to help Trump (an off the cuff assertion that he didn't clear with the FBI director when he was shown the prepared remarks). He is not credible.

[Natsu]

> The same FBI claims

Checks article:

> four former officials familiar with the matter.

I don't think we can call four anonymous sources the 'same FBI'.