Reading the full article really puts me firmly on Greenwald's side of this thing.

Given the controversy, I expected it to the inflammatory.

Instead, this is solid, restrained reporting on the simple facts of the matter, along with completely fair critiques of the way those facts have been handled by other media.

The facts all rely on a hard drive no one has seen and no one will offer forensic evidence of

Who saw the hard drive and forensic evidence for stuff like the Panama Paper or the DNC emails? I'm asking seriously because on Glenn's article he says that the Hunter emails have gone through scrutiny similar to the material from previous hacks or leaks, and he makes a really solid case with examples of how each dump was "verified".

Also does the Biden campaign has seen or have forensic evidence about this being forged? Because for the Typhoon Investigations fake dump they showed it but for this Hunter laptop thing they just said it was a Russian operation and didn't question the material, they just refuse to answer questions about some of the stuff that's there.

Greenwald writes:

> it is clear to me that the trove of documents from Hunter Biden’s emails has been verified in ways quite similar to those.

and then he doesn’t really explain how he came to this conclusion or the specific ways that it has been verified - he just asserts that others have verified it, and he trusts them.

There is corroboration of at least some of the laptop's from Tony Bobulinski, who worked with the Bidens and has turned over devices with copies of the emails to the authorities.

It's not corroboration to simply repeat the same information. Bobulinski sat on his supposed information for a year, not even posting a signature hash, until the NYPost story suddenly appeared as an October surprise.

1) He has his own copies of emails found on the laptop (for those that he was included on)

2) He didn't have the whole picture until details from the laptop (that didn't include him) were made public

3) question the timing all you will (I certainly do) but the contents of the laptop have never been repudiated other than as a vague smear of "Russian disinformation". Hunter's lawyers even asked for the laptop back

4) The DOJ just admitted that they've had an open investigation into Hunter since last year, and Bobulinski just turned over his phones as evidence in that investigation.

I really hope everyone here who is dismissing this was just as skeptical of the Steele dossier, because there is more actual hard evidence and witness testimony here than with the dossier.

Peter maas' arguments seemed quite reasonable, but then so did the counter arguments of Glenn. Hard to take sides.

But that response from another editor Betsy was garbage- she threw around words like "offensive" and "unacceptable" and didn't even bother to explain her position.

> Peter maas' arguments seemed quite reasonable

Reasonable, yes. But sufficient to warrant the sweeping changes for which he asks?

His best (and, to my reading, only very solid) point is that Greenwald's article didn't make plain that the full archive is apparently only possessed by two media outlets, who have (in an act of their own tendency to act against the public interest, to be sure) not yet provided it elsewhere.

His assertion that the other media who have juggled these questions have done so with dispassion and exhaustion ("doesn’t explore how major news organizations have done significant stories, and those stories, such as the Journal’s, have not found anything of significance. The Times has also reported on the China deal and found the claims wanting. There are other pieces I can point to...") is a view with glasses so rose-colored as to be a political fiction in 2020 America.

Moreover, Greenwald's response is substantially more sophisticated and convincing.