... nothing I provided you was innuendo, supposition or wishful thinking
Every single assertion was factual - BS. I watched your boy Schiff on NBC's Meet the Repressed show. Even he stated that "they're looking for corroborating evidence" to support the collusion allegations. That's simply politi-speak to describe the investigation: its an investigation in search of a crime.

a President should not be tweeting insults at private citizens - I don't disagree, but Trump insulting private citizens isn't exactly a new phenomenon.

So in your view, 'bad becomes normal' isn't a problem, it's an excuse.

Tell me exactly which assertion I provided is untrue. You, like a lot of other wingnuts, seem to confuse Mueller's (laudable) silence with the notion that he has discovered no evidence. You have absolutely no idea what he knows other than what has been shown in his court filings (from which I derived the points that you are trying to discredit).

This sort of nastiness has been normalized by Limblow and the Faux blowhards for years. Right wing nuts like Whell believe it’s how people are supposed to interact. They’re such an ignorant, sorry lot. Sad!

To keep this in context, your request above stems from this post where you asserted that Trump's family / friends "most certainly did" collude with Russia. Here's what you posted in response.

Here's what you posted:

My point was that none of the current investigations have handed down indictments for any of the above in connection with the "collusion" investigations. You claim all of the above is evidence of collusion. My point was that all of this is - in the context of the collusion investigation - all of the above is a collection of info that YOU contend is evidence of collusion, but in the context of the various investigations has, thus far, been nothing more than unrelated events. Your attempt - and likely others - to suggest that these items are evidence of collusion is simply innuendo or wishful thinking.

Yes, they may be "facts" but the various investigations that are on-going have not found any "collusion" based on any of these "facts". On the other hand, if one of these investigations had discovered credible evidence, I strongly suspect it would have leaked by now - if not by Mueller's team than from the Senate, House or FBI investigations.

Remember that - in spite of the various innuendo and speculation that you posted above - Schiff and company want to dig into Trump's finances. Again, an investigation in search of a crime. Why go there if any of the above that you posted is/was actionable?

Did I say that? No. There's plenty here to discuss without you making stuff up.

...or should I just send you more hay to build your straw man?

Really? Limbaugh was a President? Wow, that's fascinating. :rolleyes:

The discussion was about Presidents making comments about private citizens, but apparently you and Don want to talk about something else.

That's quite a word salad for you to basically say that you agree that my assertions were indeed factual.

So now you control the narrative!? You're such a fool. You're really not much different from your idiot Dear Leader, are you...

You deny you were offering 'long standing practice' as a reason to dismiss the point? Dishonest denial like that is why you are worthless as a poster. You would argue 2+2=5 all day long if it suited your purpose.