And how is that assessment to be made without the evidence being presented?

The "evidence" was presented, and I haven't argued it ought not be. Only that if it is that it needs to be put in its proper context. Who is presenting it and why they might be doing it are legitimate questions that help establish that context and raise further questions about the validity of the "evidence".

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

There is no bias involved when it's the obvious, demonstrable, unequivocal, truth.

It's the same with the example above. Trying to build a mountain out of nothing more than what that letter says leaves no room for any doubt.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

It's like trying to debate with a Jehovah's Witness!

I have biases, of course I do. We all do.

But not when it comes to Trump. The character of the man is there in plain sight. There is no attempt at deception. If anyone claims not to see it then I think they are lying, if not to us, then to themselves.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I politely refuse to ever debate with a JW.

If you truly believe that my attitude resembles a JW I suggest you adopt a similar strategy. I won't be offended, just as I am sure the JWs aren't with me. I have absolutely no wish to try to convert someone as intransigent as you are. Someone who, despite patient and detailed explanation, refuses to acknowledge the even most basic of facts. You are a lost cause. So don't "debate" with me. I will continue to post observations on any spurious claims, but you have no need to join in.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.