Leon Panetta – Appearance is not a reliable indicator of trustworthiness

 Jonathan Turley is on target again.

A soft-spoken, seemingly sincere demeanor does not imply trustworthy.

-------------------------------

“Denial Ain’t Just a River in Egypt”: Panetta Repeats Debunked Russian Disinformation Claims on Laptop

Last night, many of us responded to the statement of Leon Panetta, former CIA Director in the Obama Administration, that he “has no regrets” about signing the now infamous letter of 51 former intelligence officials suggesting that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. Even more unsettling was his comments that he believes it could still be Russian disinformation. It turns out that even with American intelligence, the media, and Hunter Biden himself acknowledging authenticity, it can still be Russian disinformation. Panetta has become the personification of the economic theory of path dependence. No matter how much countervailing evidence is presented to Panetta, he still refuses to accept the authenticity of the laptop.

In his interview on “Special Report,” Panetta was asked by Bret Baier if he had any regrets about signing the letter, which was then used by Joe Biden in the debate to avoid answering questions about influence peddling by his family (and a virtual blackout of coverage before the election).

Panetta insisted that he had no regrets and then added that he has seen no intelligence that would make him change his mind.

“You don’t think it was real?” Baier asked him.

Panetta responded “I think disinformation is involved here.”

This was the man in charge of our CIA.

Panetta simply refused to acknowledge (1) American intelligence quickly debunked the claim and said that there was no evidence of Russian disinformation behind the laptop, (2) the emails contained in the laptop were quickly authenticated by the other parties, (3) the FBI authenticated the laptop, (4) Hunter Biden has since sued over the use of his laptop, and (5) the media has independently authenticated the laptop.

It has also been shown that the Biden campaign and associates coordinated the letter.

It was then used by an enabling media as an excuse not to investigate or report on the contents. What is striking is that Panetta can not cite any basis to believe that it was Russian disinformation. The laptop details an influence peddling scheme by a family that has long been known for such corruption. More importantly, there was not a single fact cited in the letter (or now years later) that supported this claim. It was simply embarrassing to the Bidens before a close presidential election.

However, in order to admit to these facts, Panetta would have had to admit that he was a willing or unwitting dupe of the campaign. It is easier to simply continue to claim that this could all be the invention of the Russians. Yet, Panetta is still sought for his advice on other intelligence matters as he continues to repeat disproven claims because the truth is simply too costly on a personal level to acknowledge.

What do we call false claims that are repeated despite being repeatedly debunked and disproven? Oh, yea, disinformation.