No, that’s not how it works. When you allege something, it’s not up the listener to prove your allegation wrong; it’s up to you to provide the corroborating evidence to make the allegation believable.

When you have people saying thus-and-so is true because somebody else said it was true, or maybe even a whole long list of people with whiz-bang credentials say it’s true, that still doesn’t qualify as evidence.

The default judgment, until actual evidence is trotted out clearly and convincingly, should be that any allegation is manufactured out of blue sky.

The closest thing I recall seeing in the report to actual evidence were some references to what I presume are verifiable Twitter or Facebook postings which, I think they noted (although perhaps not together in the same spot) were deleterious to the election efforts of both Trump and Clinton. And I think I also recall reading somewhere that someone else had already determined that the point of the whole operation was to make some easy money off ads — or whatever — making the brouhaha about “election interference” seem dubious at best.

I’m not in a position to write knowledgeably about these details because it’s not something I have put a lot of time and attention into, nor do I care to. But that’s just the point. I shouldn’t have to; nobody should have to do anything more than be skeptical of allegations presented without clear, verifiable evidence.