My primary critique of Greenwald's approach is that he wants to build the story around Russiagate on factual journalism. Nothing is reported until all the t's are crossed in building a well supported journalistic story.
The problem here is that inference should play a part in reporting stories to the public. Greenwald and the Intercept should have pieced together enough data that would let them build a story, a narrative. There would seem to be a duty given better access to sources than the average citizen and expertise in developing a story-line, it is called a story-line, no. Who has the motive to leak the Clinton emails?
If the public has to wait until ever detail of a story is fact-checked, then the effects run well ahead of story.
The push for more transparency is supported when journalists make inferences. This is legitimated in the face of secrecy to call it out.
The general public can and should be treated with respect. It is possible to present what is given and what is inferred and present to the public for consideration.
To use an example from this week and something that can easily be confirmed, Wikileaks moves hosting to Russia. How does this weave into the narrative? Maybe this can be a test, when a piece of hard data does show up, how does it fit with Greenwald's narrative, anti-Russia interference?