Why? The Intercept's point is that we indeed don't know the facts, that Greenwald's article contain allegations and innuendos that can't be substantiated with t

Why? The Intercept's point is that we indeed don't know the facts, that Greenwald's article contain allegations and innuendos that can't be substantiated with the information currently available, and that therefore they edited it as they would any article to remove what couldn't be currently proven. Even Greenwald himself acknowledges he doesn't have access to the relevant information. How does that make his claim of political censorship more credible?