The Guardian is out with a story today that’s already burning up left-wing social media.

Why? Because apparently the folks on the left still haven’t learned their lesson yet.

The Guardian is pushing a story claiming documents showing the Kremlin met to agree to push “mentally unstable” Donald Trump during the 2016 election and that they had some undefined “kompromat” on Trump. Now there’s no detail as to what this alleged kompromat is, much less any evidence to support the claim.

Now, you know right off the bat with the “mentally unstable” claim that it’s going to be an acid bath of a story. But as with every other nonsensical story from the left about Trump, it’s been subjected to no critical review before being spread everywhere by the liberal media. They believe it whether or not there’s anything to support it because it reconfirms their biases. They don’t seem to care how many times they’ve gotten burnt going down this road before if they think it can hurt Trump. They don’t seem at all concerned about Russian disinformation/boatload of lies which they’ve fallen for and pushed for the past four years.

Never mind that this thing didn’t come out before in all the extensive investigations previously, including that of Robert Mueller. There were no details on the chain of custody as to the “documents” and how they came to be “leaked.”

Some tried to urge caution on the folks leaping in once again to the “too good to be true” story to assuage their continuing Trump hate.

Johns Hopkins professor Thomas Rid noted the hedging evident in the story itself.

Other reasons to be very cautious:
—timing: seems too early for such of top-level meeting
—participants: very sensitive meeting not locked down
—UK gov: no quote, not even anonymous
—Guardian doesn't even mention risk of op or forgery
—and: that strange reference to "kompromat" pic.twitter.com/C9mP9KuRXS

— Thomas Rid (@RidT) July 15, 2021

That part about a forgery is pretty important. We’re supposed to believe a document dropped out of the sky that investigations never revealed before and it was so important but somehow it leaked from the Kremlin? And the Guardian didn’t do or say anything about trying to verify it wasn’t just made-up or a forgery? It doesn’t pass the smell test.

Glenn Greenwald then called into question the author of the article and false stories he said he published in the past.

The part of the media that feigns anger at misinformation is uncritically promoting a story today by Luke Harding that Russia was blackmailing Trump — the same Harding who has published many false stories, championed the Steele Dossier and claimed Trump was long a Russian agent. pic.twitter.com/6gL7XT59cz

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) July 15, 2021

Now suddenly, Harding claims he obtained leaked, highly sensitive Kremlin documents that just so happen to prove all the lies he’s been peddling for years, that not even Mueller’s huge team found. Because it advances liberals’ interests, journalists are uncritically spreading it. pic.twitter.com/0Cu11x7uL1

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) July 15, 2021

Virtually every crazy story like this should be subject to the 48-hour rule, as I’ve said in the past. It tends to fall apart as more comes out within 48 hours. In this case, even what they’ve presented at this point has big issues.

As I’ve also said in the past about the crazy “Trump is a Russian agent” stories. If he were, he’s awfully bad at it, since he did a lot of things that were very harmful to Russia, such as build up our own energy independence. Now, if a U.S. leader were shutting down our pipelines and energy production while doing things to help Russia’s production or distribution of its oil, then that would raise questions. But what American leader would do anything like that?