[vba616]

>or that Julian Assange reports to Putin

Ah...this has been debunked?

The story so far as I know is that "multiple US intelligence agencies" told Congress that (in 2016) people working for the Russian government hacked the DNC and provided the emails to Wikileaks.

Wikileaks didn't reveal its source, but Assange said "no, nope, it definitely wasn't the Russian government, no way".

Mueller proceeded to indict a lot of Russians who allegedly were involved.

Where/what was the debunking?

[AnthonyMouse]

> Ah...this has been debunked?

> The story so far as I know is that "multiple US intelligence agencies" told Congress that (in 2016) people working for the Russian government hacked the DNC and provided the emails to Wikileaks.

Assange is the one publishing the secrets of "US intelligence agencies," so they don't like him very much. Given this conflict of interest and the knowledge that they'd never be asked to provide any actual evidence, their credibility is low.

> Mueller proceeded to indict a lot of Russians who allegedly were involved.

He indicted actual Russians, who are in Russia and not subject to US jurisdiction. The expectation was that they wouldn't show up in court and prosecutors would never have to prove their allegations.

Then some of the accused did show up, so they dropped the charges against them: https://slate.com/technology/2020/03/justice-department-drop...

But even ignoring that they never proved it in court, that still doesn't imply that Assange reports to Putin or had any knowledge Russians were involved (if indeed they were).

"Sources lacking in credibility make claim without evidence" is debunked by Hitchens's razor.

[vba616]

>"Sources lacking in credibility make claim without evidence"

Sure, if you like, there is no need to debunk the claims. Let's not bicker and argue about that, as I certainly have no idea. I still, perhaps pedantically, would claim that "no need to debunk" is different from "has been debunked".

Regardless, the breathtaking size of this isolated bubble of disinformation is worthy of note.

Four bubbles I see in the original comment: Alex Jones, Joe Rogan, people who believe false things about Rittenhouse and then there is...

   ...most of the US government, media, and Democratic party.

It's like saying a typical American breakfast is orange juice, cereal, and an aircraft carrier.

Maybe it's true! But it sure raises a lot of questions, and something funny is going on if people don't even agree that one item in the list stands out.

Something even funnier is going on if people get mad at you for noticing. People who make fun of conspiracy theories. Remember that's where this started, a comment on how prone people are to believing in conspiracies.

You can't trust the establishment! Still, big conspiracy.

[kelnos]

None of what you wrote even implies Assange reports to Putin, let alone is evidence of such.

[vba616]

I see your point, and I think you are technically correct.

What it implies to me is that "Assange reports to Putin" has not been debunked.

Do you think that it is disinformation, then?

[GenerocUsername]

You may be the victim of a large disinformation campaign.

[vba616]

There is definitely a very large disinformation campaign going on, we can all agree on that.