Throughout this thread you haven't been consistent in regards to the convictions you claim to have, such as the topic of journalistic integrity and the lack thereof, or who the bad guys are in the USA.
However, you've been consistent in abandoning said convictions when it came to coming to the defense of the people on the right side of the political spectrum. In this most recent example, you say that evidence is irrelevant shortly after demanding evidence yourself.
It's all very convenient, but I don't think anyone buys into what you are trying to sell.
I said that the existence of the people was irrelevant. No evidence is needed either way. Your initial claim was not about whether Trump's statement about Charlottesville was accurate. It was about whether he "stuck up" for the far-right people who were there. When auditing the accuracy of your claim, Trump explicitly condemned them. Therefore, you should retract your statement.
And, as you can see, I didn't let Trump off the hook. I just cleared him of the specific charge you levied against him.
Furthermore, I didn't ask you for evidence. That was someone else.
As for my consistency, I've been perfectly consistent. I know you know that as well as you've gone back and read my posts looking for stuff to nail me on and haven't come up with anything other than just saying I'm inconsistent because I didn't join you inaccurate take on a subject.
Trump isn't cleared of anything because he condemned and defended the far-right at the same time which puts the sincerity of his condemnation into strong doubt. He refered to a group of neo-nazis/white supremacists as "very fine people" and was overall inclined to put the protesters and counter-protesters of Charlottesville on an equal level. That's sticking up for the right, because the protesters and counter-protesters were not equal. The existence of people other than neo-nazis/white supremacists is crucial, because without the presence of such people, Trump must be refering to neo-nazis/white supremacists as "very fine people".
You are one of those sly people who stick up for the right in a covert manner, or rather, you are one of those who believe that they are skilled enough to further their narrative with covert tactics. Since Trump sympathized with the far-right and you don't condemn Trump for it, but instead even defend him, you are sympathizing with the far-right by extension. It has been quite clear to me since a while that that is what you are going for, hence why anytime the question of evidence comes up and the evidence doesn't suit your needs, you dismiss the importance of evidence.
I've run into people like you before on different subjects and there's no known way to get such people to admit to what they really are, but that's actually not that big of a problem. One has only failed against people like you when their narrative gets agreed to by others and so far you've failed your mission in this thread. The only support you are going to get here is by those who are already known to share those views and they didn't need any convincing from you to begin with. On the other hand, you are damaging your reputation on this site with your inconsistency; it doesn't matter if you claim that you have been consistent, because that's for others to judge.