Discrediting targets on the fiction of a commonly non-existing correlation between bogus, but possibly also real wrongdoing of the accused and the undesired statements or positions of that opponent. This is only a matter of "Mud sticks!" When promoting this obstinately, success is coming all alone, so the calculus.
For - item 3 - also like-minded persons join in, adopt the position, possibly also the opinion leadership or owned it right from the start. Now someone else is the villain: "I knew it all the time, but just cited* it, xyz said it (before me)."
A perfidiuous variant in reverse sequence is also this: "I, in place of xyz, would do this / that." This move extends the field by further - possibly yet not involved - players so as to undergird the (fictitious) accusation independent of the membership of this (newly) concerned party to a side and also independent of the response - or its lack.
* Citing in its primary sense also includes linking, retweeting or liking.
Also for item 4 two contrary approaches exist.
The first: "You misinterpreted me intentionally. You took it out of context!", also neither is the case obviously.
Simple and perplexing is the second approach: Just replicate the criticized manner according to the motto, "Hey, look, nothing but common!"
The "Everybody is against me, but you certainly understand what I say and support me" theater pictures the final item 5.
