Let me help you with the excuse part since you do not know what I consider an excuse.

Trump lies, my response, he is a liar

Your response

As I explained earlier, when every Dem and lefty and the majority of the media are after you and are willing to spin everything you do or say to try and make a fool of you, what tends to happen is those 'victims' tend to lie, since they are, or would be, lied about anyway. 

This is a classic example of what I consider a excuse to excuse Trump behavior.  What you basically try to do here is say that Trump lying is a result of everyone else.  Its everyone else fault he lies not because he is just a lier.  Actually if we are going to use the term correctly he is what you call a bullshitter.  In that one line, you tried to make Trump out to be some type of victim.  Most of your post is trying to make Trump some type of victim.  The media and the left is why he does what he does.

So within the body of text you have written, you have found an excuse to ignore or dismiss behavior you probably would not tolerate from anyone else.  These are used as excuses so you do not have to deal with parts that you do not like.

So here is my expectation from anyone not just Trump.  To be as honest as you possible can.  If you are caught lying, what I do not expect you to do is cover up with another lie.  I do not expect to have to keep checking to see if you are lying the majority of the time and I definitely do not expect to have to constantly question anything that you say.  This is where I am at with the President.  Everytime he opens his mouth about anything, I am at the point to believe he is lying first not telling the Truth.  Maybe you like to be BS all the time but at some point in time, I willing to believe even you will get tired of it.

They don't prove beyond a doubt Cohen and Manafort, but they do point out questionable behavior regardless, and you pretend like the rest doesn't matter, only the one specific point made. Your the one using Trump and all his lies over time to justify specific points here and now, which don't include those past lies apparently, so why can't I? Excuses much?

You point out Trump is a liar, always has been, always will be, with so much hard evidence... I point out so has the media, and for much longer and much more substantial than Trump since he hasn't been Prez for long. You completely ignore this and point out again how only Trump and his administration can be wrong. I call that excuses.

It's hard to know when someone is being victimized, when there are so many playing victim, and doing an award winning job at it. Some not so much. So if I don't have a problem with the behavior and tolerate it, then it's not excuses? Because I don't for the most part. Problem solved then?

There is also just dropping and bypassing an argument completely, like some people tend to do over the course of a conversation... Would you rather everyone turn a blind eye when they can't, beyond a shadow of a doubt, back up their claims, yet reply with another non related argument to try and make their case?

A bunch of the points I made point out how both sides could be viewed as just as bad as the other, and instead of agreeing with any of them, you always take the side against Trump. The weather is never always just too hot or too cold, too wet or too dry, etc. If it ever was, you would definitely know there was a problem.

I read two of your links, and it seems like you're trying to use a "where there's smoke there's fire" argument, only you can't even say the smoke is coming from Muller, just that smoke exists somewhere in the world.  Not really compelling to anyone who isn't desperate to see Muller in the wrong. 

For example, hypothetically, if you proved conclusively that "either the White House or Muller leaked stuff", and Trump's White House has been proven in the past to leak like a sieve, you can't reasonably expect us to believe that it's evidence Muller leaked stuff. 

Again, you are coming at this with a whole boatload of assumptions that just aren't a reasonable starting point. 

The fall guys take the fall and Teflon Trump walks free. It is everyone else's fault, never Trump's fault!

You read some of it, and are making a decision based on that, and not everything? That's how poor decisions get made. Great starting point...

The point I was making was that what was being used against me, 'Trump is a liar', not only isn't what the Cohen and Manafort case is about, but that using 'Trump is a liar', means applying every single time he's ever lied to make a point, like saying 'where there once was smoke, there must eventually be another fire'. Which ironically is what your saying, that I'm saying. So neither argument has all that much merit then, which I pointed out. If indirect evidence isn't worth admitting, neither of our points are useful since we aren't focusing on what applies directly and specifically to the case. I could throw out more indirect references to why Mueller himself doesn't exactly have the cleanest track record, but it'll either end up more 'conspiracy theory', or just another 'excuse', based on what evidence is deemed "admissible" in this conversation so I'm told.

The fact of the matter is the direction has gone considerably off topic. I started out by joining an existing talking point about how the Stormy payment may or may not be a problem for Trump himself, and somehow I'm now defending the case against Cohen and Manafort, and Muellers team and it's integrity. As for whether or not Trump is a liar, I thought that was already covered in the first few posts of this particular conversation. I didn't expect joining a contained battle would turn into a world war. When it comes to Trump though I guess, every battle, no matter how minor, must be turned into a war by his foes to completely destroy him. No wonder why the right typically stays so silent and keeps to the shadows.

Where there is smoke theres fire.

So your expectations from your leader is that when put in a high pressure job that he will act like a victim and his way of dealing with it is to lie about everything.  Ok, we do not need to go down this route anymore.  I perfectly understand what your expectations are.

Here is the thing about your second point, I am not talking about anyone else.  I am not talking about the left, the right or the middle because I do not care about those labels.  I feel they are just labels put on a group so you can group them together and paint them with a broad stroke.  What I see is people and individual action. So to answer your question, yes people can be bad no matter what side they support but at the end of the day, I am only talking about one individual. 

My beef against Trump as I have stated many times is that I believe he is a con man.  Before the election I did a lot of research on Trump because I had no clue about him until he ran for president.  From that research, the only thing I could find about him was just another corrupt businessman.  During that time and now, he has done exactly what he has done before being president.  He has an uncanny ability to be totally ignorant on things and do not take any time to prepare or understand complex issues. He uses people and will lie to get what he wants which has been evident before he became president.  He will tell any group or people what they want to hear but he stands for nothing.  Trump is a 2 edge sword.  Since he stands for nothing, as long as you give him what he wants he will give you the time of day.  The only problem is that since he stands for nothing, he is easily swayed by the winds of opinion and greed.  I

So no, I will not look the other way when someone continues to BS me all the time.  If I cannot trust their word then I cannot trust their actions.  Lets just leave it at that.

Now if you want to get back on topic then let's talk about Manafort plea deal.  Are you going to dismiss his plea deal as nothing.  I do not remember what your stance was on Cohen going down but what is your stance on both Cohen and Manafort plea deals.

My expectation is to take everything necessary into account to come to the most proper conclusion. My leader? I made it clear before I'm not specifically on Trump's side, but I was based on the initial remarks, which really don't have much to do with what's been brought up since, yet you've decided regardless I'm in his pocket. What happened to being objective? I think I know where you stand, but it seems clear you don't know where I do.

The problem with your second point, about my second point, is that you can't only take Trump himself into consideration. That would mean at best it's Trump vs you, which immediately creates a massive bias. You have to take other people into account, and much more, to know for sure whether Trump is a liar or anything else for that matter. Labels are necessary to make sure we are of the same understanding, but the more broad those labels are the more generalized they become, so they aren't as useful, I can agree with that.

As for your beef with Trump, which doesn't sound all the open minded, that's your own choice. If you've decided based on what info you could get about him, that he's a bad person, that's you own opinion. From what I've seen it's clear there's a majority with the power the media have, to spread what they 'know' about Trump, which makes it seem very one sided, but I've also been personally told about people who apparently are terrible, yet actually ended up working with a few of them over the years ironically, and while they were rough around the edges, they were decent people overall once you got to really know them.

As I recall, we never talked about Manafort or Cohen, only Stormy, which was kind of the point for me because I didn't really have anything to add about the other two. They seem guilty of the charges they plead guilty to, or potentially even worse since they went down without that much of a fight, so who knows what else they may be hiding potentially. Which is probably why Mueller wants their cooperation when he feels he requires it. Maybe the plea deal was that good that it was worth it for them to just back down and accept it, I dunno, but it got pretty quiet pretty quickly, so I can only assume they both have accepted their current position.

If you tell me to go read your ten pages of evidence, and the first five are literally nonsense, I feel justified in not reading the other five.  You presented the links as showing "Plenty of reasons that sure make it look like there have been plenty of leaks from Muellers team, whether the leaks went straight to the media or through another source."  I gave the first 50% of the evidence you cited a good solid read and it did not support your statement at all.  I don't mean "not sufficiently to convince me", I mean "not sufficiently to even suggest what you are claiming is one iota more likely than before I read this."  It's possible I missed something, but until that's shown, you can try to turn this around on me all you want, but it's not going to work. 

Regarding your point about smoke and fire, I hope you're not seriously suggesting that we can never establish an observed pattern of behavior and use that to make judgments about what is likely (not 100% absolutely known, but likely) to be true in other situations.  The argument is that Trump's pattern of behavior is to lie or bullshit or somehow think he's telling the truth but be massively wrong (in ways that he could have fact-checked in literally two minutes) time and time again.  This has not been established to be true of certain other parties.*  Similarly, White House leaks vs. Mueller leaks.  (vs. congressional leaks?  Not sure if that would apply in this case)

If you think the topic has been derailed, and don't want to go there, then by all means try to rein it back in and only discuss what you originally wanted to discuss.  But you weren't doing that.* 

* (For example, you say the media lies more than Trump.  Perhaps true by raw number of lies if you consider the number of journalists on the whole planet and include North Korean state-run media and InfoWars, but the claim is certainly false given "mass media, on a percentage basis, in the United States".  I'd like to know what evidence you were basing your statement on but it would probably be a path you don't want to go down.)

What if the other 5 make up for the first 10 you didn't find useful? If the world doesn't hand you everything immediately on a silver platter you just move on instead? I did not present my statement as proof of the links. Your assuming this. You want me to try and convince you, when you didn't bother to go over everything, and then tell me it won't change your mind anyway?

I didn't suggest you can't bring indirect evidence into the matter, the other individual in the conversation did. I was just pointing out those rules were apparently in play. If you don't agree with that, don't complain to me.

Well based on my previous points about spin on a level where it never ends, mostly from the media, it's not always that easy to try and rein it back in, without having someone try and call you out, and/or assume your simply using more 'excuses' to get out of an argument you can't 'win'. At this point, it seemed like it was clear nothing I was saying was going to be taken seriously and was going to be labeled an excuse regardless, and there is no point continuing a conversation in that case, which is why I brought it up.

Your asking me to go through the entire history of the media and it's lies, and figure out the ratio's, and do the same for Trump, and compare them to see who's the bigger liar? That in itself is ridiculous, especially considering you would only read half of just one of my posts. Equality?