I'm not in favor of vague statements like OP's initial comment, which is compatible with (and on it's own, indistinguishable from) wild conspiracy theories.
It appears from OP's subsequent comment that OP was referring to stories in the run-up to the 2016 election that depended on anonymous/pseudonymous sources with links to the intelligence agencies. In that case there is a wealth of reporting on those issues-- some similar to the one the OP has now posted which were before the election, but many more in the aftermath of it.
Hell, writing on the subject of blind trust in anonymous intelligence sources is apparently the raison dêtre of Glenn Greenwald these days. Pick any piece at random of his from The Intercept or substack and I'd bet you'll find reputable sources regarding trumped-up 2016 election stories that back up his general argument about how problematic that practice is. Other writers have done the same, consistently, for years now.
Given that wealth of easily searchable material (which, btw, has stood the test of time and been corroborating by other sources), being comfortable making vague statements and encouraging blanket distrust is irresponsible. Are you and OP bedfellows with the "stop the steal" idgets who AFAICT are following the "make distrusting the deep state cool again" to the tee?
I'm not. If you aren't either, then I don't see how you would distinguish your positions if not through clear-headed discussion of documented acts of corruption. I also don't see why we shouldn't go out of our way to distinguish our own distrust from the myriad active campaigns to exploit people's growing general distrust to siphon money from them. (The hundreds of millions Trump has raised is one such example.)
Also notice how OP's follow-up essentially implies that I would not be able to easily figure out the truth without doing my own personal research project. MSM can't be trusted. Intelligence can't be trusted. But personal speculation is apparently in play: "Is that by accident?" OP asks, again without explanation as to scope, evidence, etc. of the implication.
> I'm not. If you aren't either, then I don't see how you would distinguish your positions if not through clear-headed discussion of documented acts of corruption.
I’m reminded a little bit about the NRA and their congressional supporters, who block every attempt to fund and study gun violence, and then in the same breath say “There’s no evidence of gun ownership affects violence”
It appears from OP's subsequent comment that OP was referring to stories in the run-up to the 2016 election that depended on anonymous/pseudonymous sources with links to the intelligence agencies. In that case there is a wealth of reporting on those issues-- some similar to the one the OP has now posted which were before the election, but many more in the aftermath of it.
Hell, writing on the subject of blind trust in anonymous intelligence sources is apparently the raison dêtre of Glenn Greenwald these days. Pick any piece at random of his from The Intercept or substack and I'd bet you'll find reputable sources regarding trumped-up 2016 election stories that back up his general argument about how problematic that practice is. Other writers have done the same, consistently, for years now.
Given that wealth of easily searchable material (which, btw, has stood the test of time and been corroborating by other sources), being comfortable making vague statements and encouraging blanket distrust is irresponsible. Are you and OP bedfellows with the "stop the steal" idgets who AFAICT are following the "make distrusting the deep state cool again" to the tee?
I'm not. If you aren't either, then I don't see how you would distinguish your positions if not through clear-headed discussion of documented acts of corruption. I also don't see why we shouldn't go out of our way to distinguish our own distrust from the myriad active campaigns to exploit people's growing general distrust to siphon money from them. (The hundreds of millions Trump has raised is one such example.)
Also notice how OP's follow-up essentially implies that I would not be able to easily figure out the truth without doing my own personal research project. MSM can't be trusted. Intelligence can't be trusted. But personal speculation is apparently in play: "Is that by accident?" OP asks, again without explanation as to scope, evidence, etc. of the implication.
That way lies rabbit holes.