The fact that my sources repeat what I'm saying means that I'm right. What would you consider to be correct, that my sources contradict what I say?
All the people whose writings support what I say have no motivation other than what they say is true. That does not compare to a liberal conspiracy theory stemming from butthurt that Trump won in 2016.
No you didn't, all you did was link to articles that simply repeated your claims. Repetition =/= support.
Repeat or not, I linked to articles that support my claims.
Except none of those articles support your claims. Repetition =/= support
By that logic, there was plenty of support for the claim that Trump colluded with Russia to fix the 2016 election in his favor.
The fact that my sources repeat what I'm saying means that I'm right. What would you consider to be correct, that my sources contradict what I say?
All the people whose writings support what I say have no motivation other than what they say is true. That does not compare to a liberal conspiracy theory stemming from butthurt that Trump won in 2016.