It appears you missed my edit. I am not arguing the validity of the claims, I am simply stating that there are sources for the claims. I can imagine some of the claims are valid and some aren't, but that was not my point. At a glance, there are sources for every single claim, over one thousand. Just because a site may have a bias against someone or something, and I don't know of a site that doesn't (let me know if you're aware of a 100% objective, bias-free news site), does not invalidate any claims.
As I mentioned in my edit, I don't particularly care about the claims, but I did check a few and have seen nothing factually incorrect about them. That doesn't mean they're all true, but sources exist. Feel free to manually review all 1,375 if you'd like.