The Pizzagate research findings are inextricably linked to Wikileaks. First, they leaked a portion of John Podesta's emails in October 2016, the content of which many will argue contained the very first Pizzagate evidence. https://Wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/

Second, when establishment media began to attribute the DNC leaks supplied to Wikileaks and published in July 2016 to "Russian hackers" Wikileaks said they were wrong. After DNC staffer Seth Rich was murdered under bizarre circumstances, many speculated that he was the source of the leak. Kim Dotcom claimed publicly to have proof that Rich was the source and Wikileaks did not refute the claim. https://Wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/

Dating at least as far back as when Pam Anderson first visited Assange I've been reading a lot of theories about Julian Assange and Wikileaks. The theories can be broken into 2 groups to make matters simple.

In one group the theories all involve the death or removal of Julian Assange in October 2016. Some theories suggest that he was simply killed and all future communications from him and by extension Wikileaks are from other parties. The few appearances of Julian after his supposed death are digital fakes or were filmed before his death.

In this group also falls the theory that Assange was either killed or removed and replaced by a body double or clone. I don't wish to denigrate the work done by many into the possibility of body doubles or clones. But even they can understand that their evidence is limited and their theories very speculative. So I prefer to judge the viability of these theories based on the total weight of evidence and not whether human cloning is possible or not.

The remaining group is comprised of theories that Julian Assange and Wikileaks are compromised or have been agents of some government since the beginning. In other words, this group of theories generally portrays Assange as deceptive and acting against the interests of the people he claims to be serving.

There are some outliers and variations, but that generally summarizes the dominant theories. So, which group do you subscribe to? Or, do you have different thoughts on the matter?

To be honest, ever since I leaned about Wikileaks, being the realist that I am, I wondered, "What better way for the establishment to cast a dragnet for unsavory information than Wikileaks?" I still hold onto suspicions that Wikileaks was possibly set up to lure whistleblowers and that the most damaging material submitted to them is buried, the whistleblower silenced. I've also wondered why more people haven't had similar suspicions.

But then I consider the bigger picture and the lesser known story of Assange and Wikileaks and I'm less suspicious. I think if others did the same they would likewise be less likely to subscribe to the aforementioned theories.

Do you know anything about the US government's shenanigans arising from their apparent war with Assange and Wikileaks? Do you know anything about the inner workings of Wikileaks? Do you know anything about the nefarious acts of parties connected to Assange or Wikileaks? Take a look for yourself and see if your gut reaction is that it's all street theater, the only purpose of which is to further substantiate that Assange and Wikileaks are authentic.

By far the most comprehensive analysis of Assange and Wikileaks can be found at Jimmy's Llama... https://jimmysllama.com

If Wikileaks was a fraud and Assange an agent of the state, why would someone organize a coordinated media campaign to smear Assange and disrupt the relationship between Ecuador and the UK pertaining to Assange's asylum? What if the journalists involved were connected to George Soros and USAID?

Why would the foreign media make absurd claims about the costs to house Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy or make up claims of security reports detailing every move made by Wikileaks that portray them as devious and acting like an intelligence agency? A media campaign of this type took place just months ago. But it wasn't covered much by US media. Is Wikileaks a dragnet operation that intends to lure foreign whistleblowers?

The US and UK press do cover Assange, and the coverage is distinctly negative. They often cite sources that have been revealed previously as dubious NGOs or otherwise disreputable. That would make sense were Wikileaks a real thorn in the establishment's side, but not were it their own operation.

Why would US government agencies work so hard to conceal that there is a sealed indictment prepared for Assange? That would indicate the indictment contains some funky elements. Not to mention certain US agents and politicians making very telling statements about Assange. It looks to me like just what you'd expect from a disgusting, bumbling, arrogant state apparatus seeking to destroy a legitimate threat to their rule.