. @matthewacole & James Risen of @theintercept write that NYT "disclos[ed] that Russia paid bounties to the Taliban."

NYT didn't "disclose" that Russian paid bounties; it *alleged* it. Big difference. Especially since US intel is divided on the allegation, as NYT later reported.

. @matthewacole & Risen repeat the error. They write of US "intelligence reports showing that Russia has interfered in the U.S. electoral system... in 2020, a repeat of Moscow’s 2016 intervention."

No, US intel reports have *alleged* -- they haven't "shown" a thing.

If US intel reports had shown us that Russian was interfering in the 2020 election, why do we have zero information showing what that supposed interference looks like? Are we going to get some (allegedly) hacked emails, or perhaps -- heaven forbid -- some more social media memes?

These aren't just semantic errors -- they're factual errors. Cole & Risen are mistaking allegations (& in the case of the bounties, seriously challenged allegations) for established facts. @TheIntercept should correct it.

Still no correction from @TheIntercept. If they had reported false or unsubstantiated Trump admin claims as fact, they would've corrected it within minutes.

Reporting false or unsubstantiated Russiagate claims as fact apparently doesn't infringe on its editorial standards.

. @TheIntercept didn't correct James Risen & @matthewacole's stenography about Russian Bounties & Russian Interference.

In their latest, Risen & Cole are now exploiting a CIA suicide to engage in ridiculous innuendo: https://twitter.com/theintercept/status/1298932749957505024?s=20

Risen & Cole report the suicide of a senior CIA official. He killed himself on June 14, two weeks before Russian bounties allegation was reported.

Risen & Cole suggest that because he wasn't alive, a memo that raised doubts about the bounties allegation isn't credible!

Risen & Cole omit -- as they did in their earlier story -- that, *at most*, CIA had "medium confidence" in bounty allegation -- & that other agencies, DIA & NSA, had strong doubts. This late official, Anthony Schinella, was CIA. So he would have had ZERO impact on others' doubts.

So this is just reckless journalism. They're exploiting a man's suicide to cast suspicion on a memo that collected intelligence doubts about the Russian Bounties allegation -- on the sole basis that it came out after he killed himself!

As I've said, it's The Intercept's business if they want to pay Risen $300,000 to write Russiagate fan fiction columns. But look at the result: he's now bringing his disinformation into his reporting. This man's death is an actual scoop; the way it's reported is disgraceful.

The Intercept does great domestic coverage. But on national security state, it's the ultimate validation of the teachings of Manufacturing Consent. A site not just at left end of spectrum but founded on being "adversarial" has devolved into stenography on the critical topics.