[mint2]

I provided no proof because the facts I stated are well known, but more importantly this article itself points out Russia interference in the election and various trump Russia connections that are unrelated to the dossier. It would be weird to reiterating the article we all read, we all read it right?

In fact, to continue my analogy, the article itself explains that the rest of the forest is a big factor of why some journalists reported like the cell tower was a tree.

So No, I don’t need to provide support of statements that the article we are commenting on already supports.

It’s clear those statements are inconvenient to people so they are downvoting and not even reading the article