Hacker News Reader

Comment by mundo | Hacker News Reader

It seems impossible to hold a strong opinion on this without reading the article, and in particular, seeing how it is sourced.

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. If Greenwald has evidence to the contrary, great, the world wants to see it, and (claims of "censorship" notwithstanding) he will have no trouble getting the word out. If all he has is salacious hearsay, it's hard to fault his former editors.

View on HN

>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.

> 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.

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

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.

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."

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?

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.

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

I'm dismissing it because it doesn't seem to contain any evidence of Joe Biden doing anything bad. It seems like someone hacked his kid's email, went through it for embarrassing stuff, didn't find much, and so released it very close to the election because there wasn't enough dirt there to sustain a longer scandal.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

Does this explain why the tried to stop him from publishing elsewhere? Relevant section:

>Worse, The Intercept editors in New York, not content to censor publication of my article at the Intercept, are also demanding that I not exercise my separate contractual right with FLM regarding articles I have written but which FLM does not want to publish itself. Under my contract, I have the right to publish any articles FLM rejects with another publication. But Intercept editors in New York are demanding I not only accept their censorship of my article at The Intercept, but also refrain from publishing it with any other journalistic outlet, and are using thinly disguised lawyer-crafted threats to coerce me not to do so (proclaiming it would be “detrimental” to The Intercept if I published it elsewhere).

Did you see them make that demand? Their wording that he published implied that it would be detrimental to The Intercept, which would be a fair claim.

I think you can suggest it was careful pressure or negotiation, but it didn't read as a demand to me.

Language like that is setting up the basis for a lawsuit. It’s absolutely a demand not to publish it elsewhere. In fact it’s a thinly veiled threat if he does.

You have to read this knowing there is an existing contractural agreement that Glenn is expressly allowed to publish elsewhere if they do not publish. So the only basis to stop him from doing that would be to allege it would be “damaging” if he did.

If he's confident in his reading of the contractual agreement, what's the issue?

My read of the comment was as a negotiating point - they want to encourage a result but not make a legal demand. i.e., he can just ignore it if he doesn't have any consideration for The Intercept brand that they share.

They have no legal basis for a demand. All they have is threats.

And we know he was confident in his reading, as he went ahead and published.

It was not that and he even published that draft. If this reads as threat to you, then it will be hard to communicate with you anything negative without making you feel threatened.

Stupid circular argument. That is exactly the reasoning that he was arguing against. Based on this reasoning, you don’t publish unless mainstream news organizations publish first. Also you only publish what mainstream news organizations publish.

The "Steele Dossier" was reported on ad-nauseum, and its bona fides were suspect from the start. There little real denying the authenticity of the materials involved in this Biden case, yet suddenly new standards emerge preventing reporting? I fault the editors very much.

Does it have to be fabricated by russian intelligence? Why not just Trumps campaign hoping to do another "But Hilary's emails!"

It is undeniably not fabricated Russian intelligence. We have:

- e-mails which have been confirmed by the others on the e-mails

- videos of hunter biden engaging in sexual activity while doing hard drugs

- text messages between hunter and various family and associates

- audio tapes of Hunter Biden's voice talking about his Chinese business partner disappearing

- financial documents of the agreement between various parties (Hunter Biden, Bobulinski, and others)

It is so obviously not "fabricated by Russian intelligence". By the way, the original claims of Trump being compromised by Russia have been proven absolutely false - something Greenwald himself has written about. Greenwald is incredibly critical of the democrat establishment for the entire Russia Hoax - and it is a hoax - and he is equally critical of their coverage of the laptop story which is at this point undeniable.

Oooh! What kind of sex? Which drugs? ...yes, that would be the salacious hearsay I was referring to. If there's evidence that Joe Biden did something corrupt, I'd like to see it, but without the rest of the chaff.

what do you mean by hearsay? There are videos and pictures of him doing this stuff: sex with what looks like prostitutes and hard drugs (you can find them too on the internet). Those don't make the emails real, and it might still be a disinfo attempt, but the sex and drugs part is real for sure. This should warrant some reporting on it's own.

Good thing that Hunter Biden isn't on the ballot, right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com