So... one side believes an election was stolen with no evidence beyond partisan sources, and you say that's bad, right? The other side believes that Russia act

So... one side believes an election was stolen with no evidence beyond partisan sources, and you say that's bad, right? The other side believes that Russia acted to influence the 2016 election (not really the same thing as "stole", but whatever, I'll grant that) based on reputable journalism, and that's... bad for the same reason? It sounds like you're making a PRO-disinformation argument here! You're saying that sourcing and truth doesn't matter, just the opinion that it produces? Yikes.