> Nothing about this article seems untrustworthy.

You got it reversed. What about it seems trustworthy? Russel's teapot and all that, the one making claims has to prove it, not others have to disprove it.

> Politico is a highly trustworthy paper

Trust-proof should be per-concrete-article, not per publication.

> Your comment seems out of place.

[Citation needed] :-) -- Seriously, I don't see anything wrong. Okay, you dislike the opinion, I get it.

Isn't the reputation of a publication a legitimate part of evaluating an article?

Your attitude seems very close to a position that we can never truly know anything.

No, GP's position seems to be closer to "actually being sure about something requires more evidence than has been given".

To me it feels more like "more evidence can ever realistically be available, especially on intelligence operations, thus i can just ignore articles with content I don't like". Especially the attack on reputation worries me, since this is pretty much the only thing left to go on for average humans without unlimited time.

right, at best it's crippling. At worst it becomes a device for dismissing any news that is inconsistent with one's worldview. "That probably isn't even true."

> What about it seems trustworthy?

That Israeli spies have been caught multiple times in the US, spying.

If you've have a history of murdering people, I'm at least going to give some attention to the people saying you've murdered again.

There's no specific reason that I have to distrust Politico, or this article in particular. On the other hand, that's not really a great standard, and the trend of verbatim repeating the words of anonymous government sources needs to end... having sources that are anonymous in the government is fine, but what they say needs to be corroborated.