Well, sure, it's clear that that, after repeatedly asserting that the Trump attack is true without evidence, that's clearly the narrative about the Trump attack's origin that Intercept article, but none of their supposed examples actually use anything like the line of attack they try furiously to associate them with. Even as “decide on the narrative and then see why evidence we can try to use to sell it” articles go, that’s pretty weak tea.
“I’m no doctor, and I had a family member whose dementia contributed to his death. I will be the last one here speculating wildly about Biden’s cognitive abilities relative to his age. But his campaign is irresponsible to let this go unexplained — or undiagnosed, if the case may be.”
https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2020/03/ja...
“the question is, does he still have his stuff? How sharp is he?”
Dismiss it if you like, but there is nothing ambiguous or weak about what they said.
You are correct - I was wrong about the Clinton team in 2016. It was in fact the democratic party in 2019. As documented in the link.
You can deny it or call it just ‘gaffes’, if you like, but people should watch the (mainstream - not YouTube fakes) videos for themselves.
Either way it’s not a rumor Trump started, and there is plenty of evidence for people to consider.