I apologize unreservedly if I read more into what you said than you meant. However, your original comment was
<i>I&#x27;m inclined to at least consider the possibility that other foreign governments are helping out with making this information available because it suits their own interests</i><p>In my mind, Russia is congruent with &#x27;foreign government&#x27; and is the first that came to my mind. Perhaps you could specify which foreign governments you were thinking of? I will rephrase my take on your allegation to &quot;X is beneficial to country A. Therefore country A is doing X&quot;, which is a crazy thing to say without evidence.<p>&gt; Unfortunately I am too marginal a person to be hired as a disinformation agent<p>I hope this shows the point I was making: I made an unfounded allegation that put you on the defensive just by raising the specter of it being a <i>possibility</i> (in your words &quot;I&#x27;m inclined to at least consider the possibility&quot;.) It is this Bill O&#x27;Reilly-style insinuation that I objected to.<p>&gt;  If you can&#x27;t countenance the possibility that your political hero figures could themselves be subject to manipulation<p>I countenance this possibility in the same manner that I countenance the possibility of Obama secretly being a muslim: the probability for both is non-zero, but I&#x27;m not going to waste cycles worrying about it. My attitude to both is &quot;support your allegation with <i>some</i> proof or GTFO.&quot;<p>edit: added last quote &amp; paragraph