If you're unaware of how Ferguson doctored the Trump speech then we really have nothing to discuss. We've covered it in previous threads and I have no interest in relitigating it here just so you can try to catch up.

Equally, if you think Mueller found ANY evidence of Russian/Trump collusion to steal the 2016 election, we have nothing to discuss. Such wanton disregard for the facts can't be resolved in 350 words.

Just FYG..."Special Counsel Robert Mueller explicitly stated that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government,"

"Attorney General William Barr's summary emphasized this finding, noting Russia interfered "in sweeping and systematic fashion" but the Trump campaign did not join those efforts."

This is evasion, nmhaze, not an argument.

//If you're unaware of how Ferguson doctored the Trump speech then we really have nothing to discuss.//

You're asserting misconduct while refusing to demonstrate it. If the claim is solid, it should survive quotation and comparison. Declining to show evidence doesn't strengthen it.

//We've covered it in previous threads and I have no interest in relitigating it here just so you can try to catch up.//

Translation: trust me, bro. Past threads don't substitute for evidence in this one. If Young relies on this claim, it's his burden to establish it.

//Equally, if you think Mueller found ANY evidence of Russian/Trump collusion to steal the 2016 election, we have nothing to discuss.//

This misstates my position. I did not claim Mueller established criminal conspiracy. I said the report documented extensive Russian interference and numerous contacts between Trump campaign figures and Russian actors. That is factual.

//Such wanton disregard for the facts can't be resolved in 350 words.//

And yet I seem to manage it.

What's actually unresolved is your refusal to distinguish between "did not establish prosecutable conspiracy" and "no evidence existed." Those are not the same claim.

//Just FYG..."Special Counsel Robert Mueller explicitly stated that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government,"//

Correct. And entirely consistent with what I said. "Did not establish" is a legal conclusion about prosecutability, not a claim that evidence was absent.

//"Attorney General William Barr's summary emphasized this finding… but the Trump campaign did not join those efforts."//

Barr's summary is not the Mueller Report. Mueller explicitly corrected Barr for mischaracterising the report's conclusions. Citing Barr to override the report's documented facts is selective quotation, not clarification.

You keep collapsing a careful legal finding into a political slogan. That's why the word "hoax" does the work your argument won't.

The pattern remains unchanged:
- Evidence is asserted but withheld.
- Legal nuance is flattened into absolutes.
- Contradiction is avoided by declaring discussion closed.

That's not how facts get established. It's how beliefs get insulated.

Why not check out these US based sites:
An extensive examination of the all-the-way-down-the-line cultural consequences the multiple narcissistic personality disorders of the Trumpen-Fuhrer

http://bandyxlee.substack.com

http://politicsusa46.substack.com Truth Matters

http://jaredyatessexton.substack.com Dispatches From a Collapsing State

I understand where you're coming from JD. Its the same argument that all the TDS crowd reverted to when their fondest wishes about Mueller proving Trump's guilt were destroyed due to lack of evidence. I've been down this road plenty of times and have no desire to go there again. This daft notion that if Trump wasn't proven innocent that means he's guilty is just evasion and the screams of those who really aren't interested in he truth.

There is no evidence that there was the slightest collusion despite Mueller spending 18 months and $32million desperately seeking it. Whine all you want but thems the facts. You say there is evidence. Show it.

As to Ferguson, GY would have expected that any reasonably literate audience would have known these facts. If you're that clueless, go look it up for yourself.



I know your game. You want me to provide the facts. Then you'll declare that the facts haven't convinced you (and lets face it, you'll never be convinced) and that therefore its all false. Well I watched the 4 Corners programme and there's no doubt the Trump speech was doctored. Go see it for yourself.

Many world leaders privately recognise and strategically manage Donald Trump’s serious psychological impairment, contrasting their diplomatic language with the danger posed by an emotionally unstable commander-in-chief who controls vast military and nuclear power.

Such impairment makes Trump highly manipulable yet profoundly dangerous, enabling escalating risks to democracy and global security.
Sadly, this frames the Trump presidency as a public health emergency, worsened by the silencing of mental health professionals under the Goldwater Rule. The overall plea is urgent: mental illness at the highest level of power must be openly assessed and managed before irreversible catastrophe occurs, and delaying psychiatric intervention only magnifies the danger.

The United States is trapped in a dangerous state of political, economic, and moral disintegration under an unstable and corrupt leader, Donald Trump, who distorts reality, undermines trust in data and institutions, and enriches himself while the country sinks into debt. Misinformation has replaced truth, corruption is enabled even by the courts, and sound economic governance has been abandoned amid soaring deficits, ineffective tariffs, and reckless policies that harm ordinary Americans.

Ultimately, Trump has inflicted lasting damage on American democracy, values, global credibility, and long-standing alliances - especially with Europe - leaving the central question not whether his era will end, but how long it will take the nation to recover from the devastation he has caused.

mhaze,

Labeling disagreement as "TDS" is not argument. It's a way of dismissing positions without engaging them.

//Its the same argument that all the TDS crowd reverted to…//

In fact, it reveals just how little Trump gives the TBL crowd to base their defence of him on.

//This daft notion that if Trump wasn't proven innocent that means he's guilty…//

I have not argued Trump was "guilty" of criminal conspiracy. I explicitly distinguished between criminal liability and documented conduct. You keep arguing against a position I haven't taken.

//There is no evidence that there was the slightest collusion despite Mueller spending 18 months and $32million desperately seeking it.//

This is false as stated. Mueller documented numerous contacts between Trump campaign figures and Russian actors and extensive Russian interference. What he did not establish was prosecutable conspiracy. Those are different claims.

//Whine all you want but thems the facts. You say there is evidence. Show it.//

The evidence is in the Mueller Report itself: meetings, communications, offers of assistance, and obstruction analysis. You redefine "evidence" to mean "criminal conviction," then declare victory when that standard isn't met.

//As to Ferguson, GY would have expected that any reasonably literate audience would have known these facts.//

Again, assertion without demonstration. Expectation of audience knowledge does not substitute for evidence when making a serious accusation.

//If you're that clueless, go look it up for yourself.//

That's an admission that you're unwilling to substantiate your claim here. Refusing to present evidence while insisting it exists is not how argument works.

//I know your game. You want me to provide the facts…//

No. I want claims to be demonstrated, not protected by pre-emptive mind-reading about motives.

//Well I watched the 4 Corners programme and there's no doubt the Trump speech was doctored.//

Your personal certainty is not evidence. If the speech was "doctored," quoting the original and the edit would settle it instantly. You repeatedly refuse to do that.

What's consistent throughout is this pattern:
- Claims asserted.
- Evidence withheld.
- Discussion closed by insult or exhaustion.

That's not defending facts. It's insulating belief.