If you laid down proof that Nixon or Jefferson were literal assets, I’d still be surprised. If you did the same for trump, I’d say “what else is new”.

That's literally just your opinion. There are plenty of people on the right who "wouldn't be surprised," if it turned out that, for example, BLM protests were funded by China or someone. Because in their opinion, they went against the national interest, and in their opinion, there wasn't a legitimate grievance for them to be organic.

I don't think there's ever been a labor movement or an anti-war movement in any time in any country that wasn't accused of being foreign assets. Because things like striking for higher wages causes economic disruption which benefits the enemy, and being a conscientious objector reduces the potential strength of the military and benefits the enemy. But there's simpler explanations which are that people oppose war because war sucks and want higher wages because money can be exchanged for goods and services. This demonstrates that the logic is flawed.

Trump is openly admiring Putin and his policies

That doesn't indicate that he's a Russian asset, at best it indicates that he's a Russophile. It is possible for a person to support Putin and his policies without coercion being involved, is it not? There are people out there who support all sorts of things, many of them, very bad things. But supporting a bad thing doesn't mean they're secretly being controlled by some foreign puppetmaster. It means that they disagree with me, either in terms of what effects the policies will produce or in terms of whether they value those effects positively or negatively.

I don't understand why it's so difficult for y'all to understand that some people just think differently from you and have different perspectives. Or maybe you do understand and this whole "Russian asset" thing is performative, I can't really tell.