[uncoder0]

>The elephant in the room (which Greenwald barely acknowledges in this essay) is that many mainstream news organizations have concluded that the evidence for this story was too weak to publish, and some believe it was fabricated by Russian intelligence.

Senate Homeland Security committee and DNI director both said that this was not an issue of foreign disinfo.

In addition there is an interview from one of the co-conspirators that's 45 minutes long and he's provided documents that could be easily verified if the journalists did the leg work and asked the people who received or sent those emails if they were legitimate.

[ciarannolan]

> Senate Homeland Security committee and DNI director [...]

Both of these are partisan, unreliable sources. The DNI used to be a nonpartisan that you could at least trust somewhat. Not anymore.

[insickness]

The burden of proof is on you to prove that it is Russian disinfo, not to prove that it is not. No one has any proof that it is. And Greenwald lays out plenty of reasons in his article why the documents are likely real.

[mundo]

If we knew that (let's say) the Mexican government was trying to (let's say) keep Taylor Swift from winning a Grammy, and then a video of (let's say) Taylor Swift's cousin kicking a kitten mysteriously materialized the week before the Grammys, the reasonable assumption to make would not be that it was a lucky coincidence.

To continue this ridiculous metaphor, Glenn Greenwald is the guy arguing strenuously that this is a huge story, and anyone not covering it must be in the bag for Beyonce, because the video is authentic, it's been triple-checked, and just look at how her cousin refuses to deny it! And the rest of us are over here like, "Right, but did Tay-Tay herself actually do anything? Kicking kittens is indeed bad, but her cousin isn't the one running for President. Er, excuse me, her cousin isn't the one who's up for Best Female Vocal Performance."

[insickness]

Exactly how long before the election would something like this have to surface for you to believe it's not fake? 6 months? A year? Two years? And anything after that time frame but before the election would automatically make it fake?

[mundo]

Who said it was fake? I assume that if it was fabricated, it would've been more substantial. But I'm not gullible enough to think Biden's kid's sex tape found its way to the media in October by some sort of wacky accident.

[insickness]

So you don't deny that it's real. You're just dismissing it because you don't like when it came out.

[colordrops]

OK, but doesn't there have to be at least a shred of evidence from any source, partisan or not?

[dillondoyle]

Goes onto a Fox News morning talk show lol.

Far too many provable examples of political appointees in this administration outright lying and gaslighting the Fox News MAGA-ites into some alternative reality.

[tomschlick]

I'm sure they would go on any news program to talk about it. The others just aren't talking about it and his statement would counter the narrative they are trying to spin about disinformation.

[jessaustin]

Anyone, assuming such a person actually exists, who ever "trusted" DNI is a credulous fool. Foisting disastrous falsehoods on the gaslit USA public is the job. The current questionable proposition might be slightly more believable only for the fact that it seems more likely to discourage than to encourage war, which is opposed to the traditional preference of the office.

[ciarannolan]

The reason I said "at least trust somewhat" instead of just "trust" is because your comment is so predictable and played out that I thought I might be able to save everyone the time. Guess not!

[jessaustin]

The position has existed for 15 years. The longest tenure, seven years, was that of James Clapper. The first line in his obituary will reference his infamous perjury before Congress. Every other DNI is also a professional liar, and partisan as well. If simple facts are "predictable", do rational people therefore ignore them?