Where would the Intercept go with that story, not getting to see any evidence, and having the story end on Tucker Carlson saying he won't publicize evidence on corruption? And that the FBI has no comment? What would The Intercept do with No Comment?
That's the vulnerable position that Glenn Greenwald would've placed the publication with the bet to jump on the Hunter Biden story with zero access to evidence. Greenwald wanted the Intercept to go all-in with him.
You nicely danced around my comment that none of the content from the laptop has been denied by the Biden team.
That’s relevant, no?
What Is The Content? Why the teasing?
Sean Hannity said there was evidence of crime that would destroy the Bidens and the Democrats. Tucker Carlson said he will not publish. Guliani is now mute. Enough with the teasing.
> What would The Intercept do with No Comment?
Truly, all the news agencies around the world are failing to report on the urgency of No Comment.
He calculatedly spun two ‘sides’ very differently and held the ‘evidence’ to different standards, including specifically omitting multiple source facts inconvenient to his spin while seeming to invite them.
Example, from the top level article today:
> In the weeks leading up to the 2020 election, The New York Post obtained that laptop and published a series of articles about the Biden family’s business dealings in Ukraine, China and elsewhere.
‘Obtained’? Really? That word is doing a lot of work there. It’s not false, but really? Everything he writes now is like this — no precise word is dishonest.
His schtick is super well done, imperceptible to or even hotly denied by smart anti-mainstream readers. He’s very good.
If someone says “are these emails real?” you say “no”. Case closed.
