If "Joe Bloggs" writes an article about how "antifa thugs" ejected him as a "legitimate journalist" from covering a DNC convention, when in actual fact he was a January 6th agitator who went in with a fake ID and tried to get back stage, he's not going to write the second part.
This outlet isn't widely known, it's reasonable to ask "is this something legitimate or some deranged muskovite on twitter". Had they been reporting for the Guardian or Al Jazzera that would be the initial level of legitimacy, as they weren't it's reasonable to ask "did this actually happen, did it happen like they say"
Just because a story matches your (and my) view of the world (that trump is a devastating danger to the world and to america that should have been in jail a decade ago) doesn't mean you can simply like/share/subscribe to any story which appears to fit that narrative
Now sure, a brief look around this site shows this isn't the typical youtuber/twitter shock-jock, but the question should be asked before you can establish the credentials of the reporter
A credible reporter for a credible outlet writing a credible article won't, whether that's the Washignton Post, the Daily Telegraph, or Le Monde, or if it's BBC, RTL, Al Jazzera.
So it's always worth asking "is this a credible source". It used to be fairly easy, to be a journalist you had to have significant backing from a significant institution.