So as regards the Trump Tower meeting, what we have from JD is an admission that there was no collusion involved there since no data existed that might have lead to collusion. But JD, hilariously then seems to want to say that IF there had been something to collude over THEN Trump would have done so and that proves he colluded, although not criminally...or something.

Talk about a tangled web. I'm not even sure JD knows what he means any more. But to summarise, according to JD, there was no collusion but if there was something to collude over there would have been collusion.

But we've come full circle. GY's original post was about "Trump for Dummies" with the thesis being that many hate Trump, not because of his policies but because of the way he' misrepresented in the Australian media.

And JD ha exemplified that in spades. He knew nothing about the fabrication performed by the ABC and others around the Trump speech on January 6, and just accepted that Trump had called for the violence. And he knew nothing about how thoroughly debunked the whole RussiaGate story had become, just believing the media's assertions that there was collusion.

So in at least the case of JD, Graham's point is fully realised. A more thorough vindication is difficult to imagine.

________________________________________________________________________

Leaving JD to wallow in his ignorance, we move on. Remember how the media advised us that it was an established fact that Trump's tariffs would lead to inflation in the US? Yeah well, never mind ...
http://tiny.cc/xvlw001

mhaze,

Your declaration of victory over a caricature of my position only tells us one thing: you are someone who desperately feels the need for a debate to end on your terms - even when you lost it long ago.

I have never argued that Trump "colluded but not criminally," nor that he "would have colluded if only there was something to collude over." That is your invention, not my position.

What I've said consistently is simple: Mueller documented contacts, offers, and responses, and then explained why they did not meet the legal threshold for conspiracy. Evidence of conduct is not the same thing as a chargeable offence. Treating those as identical is your error, not mine.

Correcting sloppy wording does not retroactively turn documented material into "fabrication," and denying that material exists does not make it disappear. You know this, of course, but as I've pointed out many times now - you're all performance and no substance.

As for the rest, you've now moved on to tariffs and inflation, citing a single CPI print that the same article explicitly cautions against over-interpreting. That's a different discussion entirely.

You've made it clear you're not interested in engaging with the report itself, only with a version of my argument that's easier to dismiss. On that basis, I'm content to stop here - unless you decide you'd like to start address what I say.

Your call...

So now, having been beaten over the head with reality, you're saying there was no collusion. Finally got something right.

No collusion means RussiaGate was a hoax. Contacts between the Trump team and Russian elements isn't evidence of anything and was perfectly normal and standard.

But you fell for the stories fed to you which is precisely what GY said at the outset.

Hilariously, you banked all on a meeting that Grok fed you which had precisely no discussions about the election and was all about attempts to get sanctions on some non-government Russians lifted. But that meeting was played up by the RussiaGate hoaxers as proof of collusion which you fell for because that's what the anti-Trump media fed you. And as much as you'd prefer otherwise, that is eminently mockable.

mhaze,

The total absence of any quotes to support your caricature of my position exposes your confidence-cloaked bluff.

So, let's take a look at what I've actually said...

"Mueller said the investigation "did not establish" conspiracy. That is a legal conclusion about proof, not a declaration that no coordination or cooperation occurred."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23774#400926

"Evidence existing and evidence meeting a prosecutorial threshold are not the same thing."
"Mueller documents contacts, offers, and responses, and then explains why that conduct did not meet the legal standard to charge conspiracy."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23774#400950

At no point do I say Trump colluded. At no point do I say "collusion but not criminally". And at no point do I treat the Trump Tower meeting as proof of conspiracy. I explicitly say the opposite.

Of course, that doesn't stop you claiming otherwise:

"You’ve gone from claims that there was collusion but not enough evidence to prove it…"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23774#400947

"You’re saying IF there had been something to collude over THEN Trump would have colluded…"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23774#400957

And my favourite:

"[JD] hilariously then seems to want to say that IF there had been something to collude over THEN Trump would have done so and that proves he colluded, although not criminally...or something."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23774#400961

That "or something" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there! But since when has it been alright for something to "seem" a particular way?

"JD SEEMS to be a moron." - mhaze
"Although I suspect you'd SEEM to misunderstand it." - mhaze
"Paul SEEMS to be learning from JD." - mhaze
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10594#369885

(Them's mocking caps there!)

Getting back on track...

If I claimed collusion, quote me.
If I claimed RussiaGate was proven, quote me.
If I said Trump Tower "proved" anything, quote me.

There's a consistent distinction between documented conduct and chargeable conspiracy. Mueller makes that distinction explicitly. Collapsing it into "hoax vs collusion" is a rhetorical shortcut, not an argument.

Confidence isn’t evidence, mhaze, and arguing against a position I never took doesn’t make it mine.

If I've missed something, then quote it. Or just keep doing what you're doing - it's going great for you!

This all started off with JD asserting that Graham was wrong to say Australian's had been misled about Trump due to things like the ABC's false editing of Trump's J6 speech and their false reporting promoting the RussiaGate hoax.

But it seems that JD is now conceding that indeed the ABC did falsely edit the speech and that claims Trump colluded with Russia are wrong, which of course means that reporting it as factual as the ABC did, misled Australians.

Meaning GY's original points are vindicated. That's seems to be an appropriate spot to end the discussion.

And still not a single quote, mhaze. Just as I predicted.

Why?

Because even you know that what your claiming isn't true. Your summary only works by collapsing distinctions I’ve been explicit about throughout.

Acknowledging flawed editing in one broadcast does not amount to conceding that Australians were broadly “misled about Trump”, nor does it absolve Trump of responsibility for January 6. Those are separate questions.

Likewise, acknowledging that Mueller did not establish criminal conspiracy does not turn the investigation into a “hoax”, nor does it make reporting on Russian interference and documented campaign contacts false or misleading. Mueller rejected that binary himself.

You’ve again replaced what I actually argued with a simplified version that happens to vindicate Graham Young’s thesis. That doesn’t make it accurate.

If you’re content to end the discussion on a summary you constructed rather than one that reflects what was said, that’s your choice. The record, however, is already clear.

//Meaning GY's original points are vindicated.//

Apparently not.

//That's seems to be an appropriate spot to end the discussion.//

Indeed it does. Don't let the door hit you on the way out...