Rather than focusing too much on the he-said she-said of this post and the response from the Intercept, I think it's more interesting to read Glenn's article for yourself, along with the email exchange that precipitated the resignation.

Article: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-b...

Emails: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito...

To me, the article seemed rather light on evidence and heavy on speculation. The first email from the editorial staff seemed reasonable, if perhaps a little heavy-handed. It certainly did not seem to warrant Glenn's immediate escalation - his reply reads like an ultimatum:

> But if the Intercept's position is that it won't publish any article by me that suggests that there are valid questions about whether Joe Biden engaged in wrongdoing, then I think we should agree that the Intercept's position is that it is unwilling to publish the article I want to publish about the Democratic front-runner. Under my contract, if TI decides it does not want to publish something I want to publish, then I have the right to publish it elsewhere, which is a right I would exercise with this article.

Another excerpt that stood out, this one from Glenn's follow-up email (the 3rd in the chain):

> ...this is the first time in fifteen years of my writing about politics that I've been censored... and it's happening less than a week before a presidential election.

So, he first equates the editorial request to censorship, then emphasizes the closeness of the election in order to justify why that editorial concern should be bypassed.

His entire attitude seems to be that since he doesn't write anything factually incorrect, any attempt to influence or challenge the things his writing tries to imply is equivalent to censorship. A misguided attitude, if not downright disingenuous, IMO. But you can read and decide for yourself.