here is the problem with thousands of citations, intel reports, crime reports, etc ... if they are just stand alone items without connection, all he has is a pattern of criminality (this is the same as Schweizer's book). The nutty talk show hosts use the same technique to "prove" Sec Clinton is not just the spawn of Satan but Satan. They start with a fact. Yes a real live unimpeachable fact ... not an alternative fact. The they mention the conclusion they want to reach. And if by magic they will present a case full of "facts" (actually assumptions) which prove the claim.
Now don't get me wrong. There is little doubt Mr Trump had been consorting with Russians for some time. The problem is, was it more than just consorting? Did he break the law or just step all over the envelope?
For me, I have to see the books
*****
The current case is curious. I do not know if anyone can "prove" conspiracy (which I believe is the correct charge) but certainly there was a level of interaction which could easily be construed as collusion. But does it rise to the level of a crime?
However, I think there may be fairly clear evidence of obstruction of an investigation. So why would Mr Trump try to obstruct an investigation? Was he simply trying to protect Gen Flynn? but why? Mr Trump doesn't give a sheis about anyone but himself. just curious.
What about all the false statements he made? Of course he could be lying to the press ... it is not against the law, but sure is misleading. Or was he trying to protect his sons from possible criminal liability? Did he sense they may have broken the law and he was trying to protect them?
