Is there a single journalist willing to say with a straight face they believe the emails relating to the Bidens are either fabricated or otherwise fraudulently altered, but the Bidens just aren& #39;t saying so? There has to be some limits to your willingness to go to bat for them.

When you report a huge archive, there& #39;s no way to prove the negative that none of it is altered. You investigate & confirm as much as you can, then use your journalistic judgment. The only way you get confirmation is when the subjects of the reporting don& #39;t deny the authenticity.

When we reported the Snowden archive, we knew it was genuine, but breathed a huge sigh of relief when NSA didn& #39;t claim the docs were fake.

The same was true with our Brazil reporting over the last year: publishing private messages from corrupt Bolsonaro officials & prosecutors.

As a journalist publishing private communications & docs that are incriminating, you know the subjects of the reporting will immediately claim they& #39;re fake *if the are*. Of course they will: that would kill the reporting!

There& #39;s a reason the Bidens aren& #39;t claiming they& #39;re fake.

I don& #39;t think that the emails -- so far -- reveal a huge scandal. They so far just establish standard sleaze and DC corruption.

The huge scandal to me is the blatant rank-closing and cone of silence -- a prohibition -- erected *by journalists* around this story to defend Biden.