Ric₿ezos

NYT has responded to my post by claiming that I’m “spreading conspiracy theories.” But which of us is the one trafficking in unsubstantiated allegations? Recent coverage (including CNN, which I QT’d) shows: — The intelligence community has not established conclusive evidence that Alice Huang knowingly acted as a spy or funneled information to Beijing. — There is internal disagreement about the strength of the evidence and whether she was recruited by the MSS. — Attorney General Todd Blanche has said on the record that the Justice Department, he, and FBI Director Patel have reached no conclusions about “who she is or is not.” — Some officials at ODNI and CIA have indicated the “Chinese spy” label is not fully accurate or is “over-torqued” based on the available intercepts and collection. — Incoming House Intelligence Chairman Jim Himes, a Democrat, said it was still unclear whether Alice Huang was a Chinese spy immediately after he was briefed. NYT’s stories (which have alleged “Chinese spy” dozens of times) have relied exclusively on anonymous officials. No official has gone on the record affirming it as established fact, and the more recent reporting reflects greater caution and disagreement inside the government. So when I point out that the spy narrative is unconfirmed and increasingly contested, that is not a conspiracy theory. It’s a growing body of evidence that indicts the NYT’s reporting.