That's YOUR argument.

No it isn't. I asked you for your standards to evaluate papers, sources, and you seemed to say - anyone who had a discussion of the Russian Contacts, etc., was a bad source to you. It sounds circular.

That's EXACTLY the flow you libs are setting up. You sit here and try to proclaim that certain media outlets are unreliable (because you don't like what they say). You then point to some "fact checker" (who also shares a liberal bias) who then dutifully applies their own confirmation bias to find fault with non-liberal sites.

No, I use the fact checks as corroboration (I think the source is flaky and see if it supports my thinking), or a starting point (first article and before wading thru 15 pages, I want to see if it's worthwhile). I know there's a liberal bias and that's good - RW sites just omit inconvenient facts, whereas liberal sites explain them, and sometimes give a gloss to them.

If I see the site has a RW bias but is highly factual, I'll read the site. I can account for RW bias. But if the site promotes conspiracy theories, or has too many failed fact checks, I don't want to read it, but may skim an article to see.

That's not how life works. I merely point out that the stones you're throwing are from the porch of a very large and very brittle glass house.

Well, you've established that you have no real articulable criteria for rating sources than a vague reference to Russian Collusion Hoax. This reference seems to be indistinguishable from "a source that I like", which is understandable but there's no attempt to evaluate for a fact source or weed out misinformation and conspiracy theories.