4 ms·

Ok, but I've never seen the media ever publicly discuss document verification in a story. Stories about Trump's tax returns don't include any sort of explanati

Ok, but I've never seen the media ever publicly discuss document verification in a story. Stories about Trump's tax returns don't include any sort of explanation about verification. They wouldn't even publish the documents in order to keep the source secret. So I don't think its reasonable to assume the lack of easy confirmation means it is necessarily fake.

jeffbee 6y ago
Perhaps you just haven't read the newspaper much. "So-and-so McOfficial confirmed the authenticity of the documents" is standard copy. This is a result for just googling "confirmed the authenticity of the emails": https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/09/12/trump-control-over-cdc-reports/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/09/12/trump-contr...
- svrb 6y ago
  So something like > The Biden campaign did not dispute the veracity of the emails
- aksss 6y ago
  Yet the pattern of the last four years for bombshell stories has been more to the tune of “unnamed intelligence official”, “high-level anonymous source”. That’s anything but verification.
donmcronald 6y ago
Tax returns would be harder to verify I think. Email is super simple and cryptographic (virtually tamper proof). Just publish the full, raw email with all the headers. And it’s not a lack of easy confirmation. It’s trivial to say conclusively whether or not that email was processed by Gmail. If it wasn’t it’s 100% guaranteed to be a really poor quality fake. If it went through Gmail and has the proper signatures, then it’s not as easy to confirm or refute because you’d need a lot more info from the mail providers.