The NYT's investigative reporting is more believable than David Sacks. If the NYT says it has sources, I believe it. I don't expect David Sacks to have done the legwork to track down the same people.
I fully believe the NY Times is correct in that there was a "memo" citing "intelligence." I believe CNN's sources in saying that this "intelligence" did not actually contain conclusive evidence. Remember that "intelligence" can mean anything from actual wire taps, to unverified claims from foreign agencies, to lies by sketchy sources, to a junior analyst reading the newspaper. And being a "spy" can mean anything from being an actual trained honey-pot, to someone the MSS had a single conversation with.
- AG says no. (“no conclusions reached”). - CIA says no. (“not yet convinced”). - DNI says no (“not entirely accurate and over-torqued”). - Ranking Democrat on House Intelligence (incoming Chairman) says no. (“today, at least, I don’t know”). This was immediately after he was briefed.
none of the mainstream news sources can be trusted - they all exist to manufacture consent on behalf of gvt or some other powerful individuals.