Well, in a Bayesian way, he has done a great deal to earn that trust. This is not just a "trust me bro" from some random bro, but a "trust me bro" from someone who has a proven track record as an investigative journalism. In some of the most important stories of the last 50 years, which he broke.

It's not like someone can just "take him for a ride" or is the kind who makes things up. And it's not like a journalist with experience like that just takes a source on blind faith.

While trust is not the same as irrefutable proof, trust on a proven track record goes a long way.

In the end, in the absense of proof, there's two sides to trust: a government caught lying again and again (on a story whose official line was nonsense to begin with), versus a guy who has caught them with their pants down again and again.

Still, I bet there will be proof too, and not that far in the future: perhaps just when it doesn't matter anymore, because "that's behind us now, let's focus on current stuff".

>I would go even further and say that if his story was sound he wouldn't need to write a defense on why he's published it on Substack.

He'd need a defense on why he's published on Substack anyway - whether the story is sound doesn't come into it.

He had to defend his stories hard, even when those were totally proven true, with ample proof, and published on major respectable newspapers. They still denied him with BS (the government and friendly pro-state press) until they couldn't spin it anymore.

So to publish it on Substack, in today's climate? He'd definitely need a defense.