It's not that he "didn't support the narrative".
He believed a story with little evidence and his journalistic integrity became questionable.
He believed a story with little evidence and his journalistic integrity became questionable.
In his own words:
“I don’t think that the emails — so far — reveal a huge scandal. They so far just establish standard sleaze and DC corruption. The huge scandal to me is the blatant rank-closing and cone of silence — a prohibition — erected by journalists around this story to defend Biden,”
“Is there a single journalist willing to say with a straight face they believe the emails relating to the Bidens are either fabricated or otherwise fraudulently altered, but the Bidens just aren’t saying so?,”
“When you report a huge archive, there’s no way to prove the negative that none of it is altered. You investigate & confirm as much as you can, then use your journalistic judgment. The only way you get confirmation is when the subjects of the reporting don’t deny the authenticity,”
“You know the subjects of the reporting will immediately claim they’re fake if the are. Of course they will: that would kill the reporting!”
“There’s a reason the Bidens aren’t claiming they’re fake,”
He thought the laptop story was true and barked about it for days. He had no evidence to think it was true, it just was to him.
His substack work was after he humiliated himself on Twitter and is largely trying to justify how stupid he was.
Downvote all you want Biden lackies, it doesnt change the uncomfortable facts!
See now I know this is about political identity to you and not about the truth.
Your response here indicates you were never trying to have a conversation at all.
Projection at its most obvious.