> The emails exist and I think have gone through the same amount of due process as other leaked documents. I'm not convinced. The story was initially rejected

> The emails exist and I think have gone through the same amount of due process as other leaked documents. I'm not convinced. The story was initially rejected from several outlets and even struggled to get a byline in the NYPost. This is on top of the questionable provenance of the laptop and the lack of metadata on the files. All of this for a story that, at least in my view, isn't even very remarkable. > Here's NYTs David Barstow (who broke the Trump tax returns) discussing why the faith of the leaker/hacker does not matter: I think my point isn't clear—a bad faith actor doesn't intrinsically make their information less truthful. The veracity of the information is a completely independent factor. My argument is that, when someone brings new information, and you expect this person to be acting in bad faith, you should evaluate that information with extra scrutiny, because they have incentive to fabricate and to stretch the truth. The information may, ultimately, be truthful, in which case good! check it, double-check it, and publish it! But their word shouldn't be taken for granted just because the story is exciting.