Julian Assange and Snowden are characters who reveal the inner workings of the deep state. They are nonpartisan and it should reveal how the sausage is made and how you fit in that sausage.
To your point, the details are coming through unnamed sources in the article. I thought that’s what you were getting at. I’m inclined to believe it’s true, but we’ll have to wait for a formal deposition to know what’s what.
Well yes, because it’s playing into conspiracy theories that were already popular when he started making the claims. That’s why I’m dubious about it; he’s very much saying what a lot of people already wanted to hear.
So you didn’t believe anything that Snowden said was possible either? This isn’t a conviction. It’s just a lead.
Snowden had evidence
Julian Assange and Snowden are characters who reveal the inner workings of the deep state. They are nonpartisan and it should reveal how the sausage is made and how you fit in that sausage.
It’s not even a lead, it’s an anonymous accusation with no specifics.
Sorry. I didn’t realize you meant the agent was anonymous and not the source.
The agent is Jonathan Buma. His arrest was made public at the time of the initial leak. Now we’re just hearing some more details.
https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/russian-spies-targeted-elon-musk-using-sex-drugs-ex-fbi-agent-drops-bombshell-glbs-2726462-2025-05-18
India today lmao
Yeah, but it confirms what that already wanted to believe, so it’s gospel
Ah ok, the kyivInsider article didn’t name him so I assumed he was an anonymous.
Well, he isn’t an anonymous source, but it is still just an uncorroborated accusation with little if any details.
Move that goalpost!
Fallacy fallacy
To your point, the details are coming through unnamed sources in the article. I thought that’s what you were getting at. I’m inclined to believe it’s true, but we’ll have to wait for a formal deposition to know what’s what.
Well yes, because it’s playing into conspiracy theories that were already popular when he started making the claims. That’s why I’m dubious about it; he’s very much saying what a lot of people already wanted to hear.
Absolutely fair. However, the reason I’m inclined to believe it is because of its likelihood, not because I want it to be true.
Well that’s just circular reasoning: “I think it’s likely to be true because I think it’s likely to be true”