Regarding what we both said, both statements affirm that Russia interfere in our election.
No one denies this.
Welcoming help from a foreign adversary is not conspiracy.
So what’s your point
Organizing your campaign around what you anticipate a foreign adversary is going to do is not conspiracy.
So what’s your point
You asked me if I was calling Mueller a liar by saying what I said, so I'm pointing out that nothing I said contradicts anything he said. In other words, your implication was BS.
Court of public opinion only matters for a month.
Another revealing moment.
The court of public opinion is where the citizens of a country look at what's happening and apply basic logic and common sense to determine what they believe. You engage in this even as you pretend you don't.
But you have managed to twist yourself in such logic pretzels that even after it's pointed out to you, you still cannot tell the difference between the rules and high standards that must be applied in order to address the question of whether one gets to maintain their freedom, vs the standards that are needed to determine whether one gets to enjoy the public's trust.
You and I are not jurors on a court of law. We're members of a debate forum giving our opinions. Unless the topic is law (which it's not), the rules of a court of law have nothing to do with this conversation. I've made this clear to you repeatedly.
The topic here is whether it is reasonable, in the court of public opinion, to to presume the president was deserving of the attention he got when it came to his relationship with Russia and whether the circumstances warrant us to doubt whether he was acting in the country's best interest. You do not need proof sufficient to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt in order to use your own brain. But again, when the facts are not on your side...