"Even if every broadcaster edited badly,"

Oh good. Glad you caught on...or caught up....or admitted it.

"Trump's responsibility for January 6 does not rest on one TV package. "

Quick says JD. I've screwed up again...change the subject.

"Campaign contacts with WikiLeaks regarding the release of hacked material."

So nothing to do with Russia? And it wasn't the campaign that had some brief discussions with Wikileaks....discussions that went nowhere.

"Trump Tower meeting (June 2016): senior campaign figures met Russians offering "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary" as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr Trump" (Vol I)."

Yeah that's the one I kept hoping you'd get around to researching and learning about. Let me fill you in on some of the things you didn't learn or don't want to know:

1. It was a low level meeting. Trump wasn't there nor were any of the senior campaign people.
2. It lasted all of 30 minutes.
3. The Russians there had nothing to do with the Russian government.
4. The Russians did suggest they might have had some dirt on Clinton and the Trump side figured they might as well hear them out. They had no such dirt, offered nothing, and simply wanted to talk about reducing sanctions of some Russians.
5. Nothing happened (no collusion, no passing of information, no election interference) but this was the best the Mueller could come up with and obviously the best (or worst) you could come up with.

"This is a separate conspiracy narrative. "
No its an established fact.

"Mueller found Russian interference occurred."
No one ever disputed that the Russians interfered in the election. But it wasn't coordinated with Trump and nothing was ever found to show it was. Additionally, a good part of that interference was in support of Clinton. The Russians didn't want to support one side or the other but just to create doubt and confusion within the electoral process.

This is the part you utterly misunderstand.

That’s not a concession, mhaze.

//Oh good. Glad you caught on…or admitted it.//

Neither. It’s narrowing the issue.

I've always acknowledged that the editing disputes were real - while pointing out their irrelevancy to the claim you were making.

//Quick says JD. I've screwed up again...change the subject.//

January 6 responsibility was always the subject. You tried to reduce it to a media-editing argument. I rejected that reduction.

//So nothing to do with Russia?//

WikiLeaks published material hacked by Russian intelligence. Mueller explicitly treats WikiLeaks as part of the Russian interference ecosystem. Pretending otherwise is artificial compartmentalisation.

//It wasn't the campaign that had some brief discussions with Wikileaks…//

Campaign figures did communicate about releases and timing. Whether those discussions “went nowhere” is beside the point. The contact itself is what was documented.

//It was a low level meeting…Trump wasn't there…//

Mueller never claimed Trump was present. The issue is senior campaign figures responding positively to an offer explicitly framed as Russian government support.

//It lasted all of 30 minutes.//

Duration is not a defence. Willingness is the evidentiary point.

//The Russians there had nothing to do with the Russian government.//

The offer was explicitly presented as “part of Russia and its government’s support”. That framing is why Mueller treats it as relevant, regardless of whether it delivered.

//Nothing happened…this was the best Mueller could come up with.//

Again, outcome =/= evidence. Mueller documents conduct and intent, then explains why it didn’t meet the criminal threshold.

//No its an established fact.//

It’s an established claim, not an established fact. Mueller did not adopt it.

//No one ever disputed that the Russians interfered…//

Correct - and Mueller’s task was to assess contacts, responses, and willingness. That’s what you’re now minimising after denying it existed.

That said, this bears re-quoting:

"Quick, says JD. I've screwed up again... change the subject." - mhaze

Heh.

"I've always acknowledged that the editing disputes were real "

That a straight up lie. Go back and read what you actually wrote.

"January 6 responsibility was always the subject."
That a straight up lie. Go back and read what you actually wrote.

"WikiLeaks published material hacked by Russian intelligence"
Nup. Clinton claimed, without the slightest proof, that is hacked by Russia. It was part of her attempt to hide the criminality of having an unauthorised server. Wikileaks always said they didn't get their leaks from Russia. And St Julian wouldn't lie about that.

"Campaign figures did communicate about releases and timing. "
Nup. It was people who supported Trump but weren't part of the campaign.

"The offer was explicitly presented as “part of Russia and its government’s support”."

So what? And its not true anyway. But the facts are that they had nothing to do with the Russian government and therefore there was no collusion between Trump and the Russian government. Is that tooooo logical for you? Oh and if there was already contact with the Russian government, why did a clandestine meeting have to arranged? Is that tooooo logical for you?

"Mueller did not adopt it."

Mueller didn't investigate it. Just making stuff up again. And stuff up seems to be the order of the day.

Its clear that you really know little about this and are relying on Grok to feed you snippets of the story. That's not how the search for the truth works.

Done.

Don't get too excited, mhaze.

//That a straight up lie. Go back and read what you actually wrote.//

This is a wording issue, not a factual one.

I didn’t accept the editing claim as established until it was demonstrated; my point has always been that, even if true, it is irrelevant to Trump’s responsibility for January 6. I have remained consistent there, and even if I hadn't it wouldn't matter.

You're obviously very panicked now.

//January 6 responsibility was always the subject.//

Indeed, it was. That's why you attempted to collapse that responsibility into a media-editing dispute. I rejected that reduction from the outset.

//Nup. Clinton claimed… Wikileaks always said they didn’t get their leaks from Russia.//

You’re privileging the denial of the publishing intermediary over the findings of US intelligence agencies, the Mueller investigation, and a bipartisan Senate committee. That’s not scepticism, it’s source-selection.

//Nup. It was people who supported Trump but weren’t part of the campaign.//

Mueller documents communications involving campaign figures and intermediaries during the election period. Downgrading their status doesn’t erase the conduct.

//The offer was explicitly presented as part of Russia and its government’s support.//

That is how it was framed to the campaign. Whether the offer delivered is beside the point. Willingness and response are what Mueller examined.

//Mueller didn’t investigate it.//

False. Mueller explicitly addresses these events while explaining why they did not meet the criminal threshold for conspiracy.

At this point the pattern is clear: You’ve moved from "this never happened" to "it happened but doesn’t matter", and now to "you lied about what you said."

That’s not rebuttal. It’s retreat.

//Done.//

I'll bet.

Like a cornered and frightened critter, you've thrashed about and are now going to hightail it out of here - but only because you think you scratched me on the way out.

Bye bye.

"January 6 responsibility was always the subject."

Well I never wrote a single word about that. You just invented that as a topic once you realised you were utterly wrong on the actual topic.

"Mueller documents communications involving campaign figures"

More fabrication. Just hoping its true doesn't make it true.

"The offer was explicitly presented as part of Russia and its government’s support."

More fabrication.

But you've gone from claims that there was collusion but not enough evidence to prove it, to claims that if things had have been different there might have been collusion.

Again, just relying on Grok isn't the search for truth.

And just saying post after post that you want it to be true, therefore it is true is all very childish.

You’re right on one narrow point, mhaze, and I’ll correct it explicitly.

When I said "January 6 responsibility was always the subject", that was imprecise. Your original focus was media editing and Russiagate. January 6 responsibility became relevant because you invoked alleged media framing to absolve Trump of responsibility. That’s the correct scope, and I’m happy to state it that way.

That correction changes nothing else.

It does not turn documented conduct into "fabrication".
It does not convert "did not establish conspiracy" into "no evidence existed".
And it does not rescue the claim that Mueller was silent on campaign contacts.

So on substance, you’re still doing the same thing:

- When I say Mueller documents communications involving campaign figures, you respond "fabrication" without engaging the report.

- When I quote how the Trump Tower offer was framed, you respond "not true anyway" without evidence.

- When I distinguish evidence from prosecutability, you re-label that as "claims of collusion" that I never made.

That’s not a rebuttal. It’s denial framed to distract.

I have not shifted from "collusion existed" to "it might have existed". I never claimed collusion existed. I’ve consistently said Mueller documented contacts, offers, and responses, and then explained why they did not meet the criminal threshold.

Correcting one piece of wording does not retroactively make the rest of your claims true. If anything, the fact that you’re now arguing wording rather than substance shows where the ground actually shifted.

If you want to dispute what Mueller documented, do that.
If you want to argue that documented conduct is irrelevant unless indictments follow, say that plainly.

But pretending the report says less than it does isn’t a correction. It’s avoidance.