I don't want to throw too much up at once for you, Sammitch, I don't assume, either with or without clarification on your part, that you intend any kind of deception. It's just frustrating when you (I think for intended brevity) lay down conspiracies so briefly described that we honestly have no clue what you mean!
I've laid out in multiple posts SPECIFICALLY how Hillary Clinton and her inner circle (partially including Obama through his knowing communication with her on the illegal private email server) are guilty of at least 4 different kinds of treason, that is fully documented if there is any will to prosecute.
In contrast, while Trump may have said and done some inappropriate things with women, while Trump has done some questionably ethical things in the decades of his real estate and financial/business investments, while Trump had some degree of communication with the Russians (I think ANY new administration would have such communication, in an effort to negotiate a resolution to rifted diplomatic relations, WHILE GUARANTEEING THE RUSSIANS NOTHING, just exploring the negotiable possibilities).
But in 7 months of barrage by the liberal media and beltway Democrats, in Trumps case there is no evidence, absolutely nothing, to warrant the accusations let alone an indictment of Trump. And while I think it is warranted to investigate any possible impropriety with the Russians by the Trump administration, I find it an infuriating double standard when Trump is under investigation to the hilt, and despite the mountain of incriminating evidence that is RIGHT THERE for the prosecuting Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama, no one accusing Trump wants to look at or even discuss it.
The media and liberals adored Trump before he made his presidential bid. Trump was a strong supporter of Bill and Hillary during their time in the white house, yes. But he was also an equally strong supporter of Reagan. For the Nth time, for whatever other flaws, what I like about Trump is he's a pragmatist who isn't ideologically anchored to either party. And at his best, he offers a pragmatist's business sense and efficiency to reforming Washington. And it definitely needs the reforming, and has for at least 20 years. That kind of reform was not offered during or since by any other candidate in the 2016 race. During or after.
About Trump and the Clintons (and the broader Washington elites of both parties) who "ultimately drink from the same financial-sector wells", that may have been true in the past before Trump broke the establishment stranglehold on both parties. But since he has been elected, I read that he has lost about 700 million in business for his defiance. When he broke from his support of Democrats, they turned on him. He was part of the club, but no longer is.
The Republican establishment simultaneously tries to make the best of his winning and work with him, while at the exact same time large Republican factions and "deep state" bureaucrats sabotage his every move. For example, when Trump wanted to begin with tax reform, and Paul Ryan convinced Trump to go with repeal/replace Obamacare first, then pulled out the rug on Trump and humiliated Trump with a failure to rally Republican a consensus vote on the bill that it was Ryan's job to assure!
There is beyond question a collective effort to destroy Trump's presidency, I don't understand the logic of trying to say he's still part of the club that is trying to destroy him.
Whatever Trump's egotism and indulgences, I see him as a guy who has been one of the U.S.'s richest men, who is now 70, and wants to leave a greater legacy for his life than success in real estate. He is a patriot who has said for 35-plus years that he didn't want to run for political office, but that if no one else stepped up, he wouldn't rule out a white house run. And he finally did. At 70, he wants saving America to be his legacy. And like other presidents before him, he's made a few mis-steps his first year. I'd just like to see him stay on message and get the job done.
That's the outline of my prespective Sammitch. I'd be interested to see the clarification of yours.
