In the CIA, What Constitutes "Russian Disinformation"?

Yesterday in a YouTube discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop finally being introduced as evidence in a court of law - and I failed to save that video but anyway - an excerpt from a Bret Baier Fox News interview with a former CIA agent who signed the infamous 51 intelligence agents' letter prior to the 2020 election (that defeated Donald Trump's reelection attempt) suggesting that the story of the Hunter Biden laptop had earmarks of Russian disinformation, this former CIA agent went on to explain what that meant to him.

Fortunately, on the Fox News YouTube channel, this interview is preserved in a five-minute video:

Bret Baier grills ex-CIA officer on Hunter Biden letter

His comment about the earmarks starts at the 4:00 minute mark. He states that the laptop story "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian campaign in the way it was disseminated and propagated through media".

When I try to recall how the story was disseminated and propagated, I don't recall anything about Russian media. I do recall conservative media as well as right-wing alternative media (the infamous conspiracy theory people who keep being proven right despite mainstream media criticism) covering the story and I do recall the mainstream media siding with Joe Biden propaganda and campaign outlets denying the truth about the story and refusing to do their own investigation despite the public availability of the laptop's hard drive.

So basically, the way I understand this is that if a fact, any fact, contradicts or threatens Democrats and if in supporting the Democrats the media disclaims the fact, then by definition the fact is Russian disinformation.

Hell, how could anybody ever suspect that this abuse of power by America's intelligence officials could possibly be a corruption of America's claim to freedom of speech?