9. Anyone who read the editor's email correspondence posted by Greenwald can see this is a bald faced lie:
Glenn, I have carefully read your draft and there is some I agree with and some I disagree with but am comfortable publishing. However, there is some material at the core of this draft that I think is very flawed.
And then the editor went into detail why, taken on its face, all the evidence impugning Joe Biden is at best flimsy if not nonexistent. He suggested limiting the length to 2,000 words. Read the correspondence for yourself.
True to form, Greenwald responded that the editors who challenged him were corrupt:
What's happening here is obvious: you know that you can't explicitly say you don't want to publish the article because it raises questions about the candidate you and all other TI Editors want very much to win the election in 5 days. So you have to cast your censorship as an accusation"-- an outrageous and inaccurate one"-- that my article contains factually false claims, all as a pretext for alleging that my article violates The Intercept's lofty editorial standards and that it's being rejected on journalistic grounds rather than nakedly political grounds.
Greenwald is a smart guy who got to the crux of the matter. The impasse was over his desire to raise questions in a 4,800-word magnum opus about something for which there can never be any answers, because it never happened. Hunter's prospective business deal with a Chinese billionaire never happened. Anyone can ask "When-did-you-stop-beating your-wife?" questions to insinuate something that has no factual basis. How can those questions be informative? Or Greenwald could ask questions about something that may have happened, a meeting between Joe and a Ukrainian executive, but how do we know it was anything more than a two-minute meet and greet? Proponents of Trump's Big Lie say they are just asking questions about election integrity, or just asking questions about Big Pharma's push to sell COVID vaccines.
Greenwald may be right about some issues and wrong on others. But no one should trust him to show respect for fact checking or the truth.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
