That's one possible cover story. You'd have to be an idiot to believe it.
The law says that colluding with foreign governments who are trying to undermine the US government, impose regime change etc, is illegal.
I understand. Whenever "collusion" becomes important in reality of the application of law, we have a case of a totalitarian society, or at least something close to it. Same for "treason". Ok, "treason" is something quite common in many law codes. But it is seldom used in civilized societies. The only non-totalitarian use is against government people who have violated some oath of office or so. But a free man, living in a free society, cannot do such things as "treason".
This is a nice example used to argue against complete freedom of speech. In this case, it is irrelevant. The example is irrelevant anyway (I would like to know how many people have been imprisoned in the history of mankind for crying "fire" in cinemas).
Fine. But nobody tried any regime change, neither against Obama nor against Trump, except what Soros, Clinton and Co are trying now, so what's the point of this? Or is Trump winning the election a case of regime chance, where the deep state lost power or so? That would be interesting coming from your side.
Which stolen property? Which payment, which buying?
Stolen property does not just mean physical - in other words, if I hack into your computer, and steal your email, then sell them to a marketing firm after advising said marketing firm I have obtain said emails by hacking your computer, I am guilty of selling stolen property, and the marketing firm is guilty of buying stolen property.
Nonsense. Racketeering laws and organized crime laws are necessities in any industrial capitalist economy.
Trump was in violation of his oath of office as soon as he took it, on this basis alone (and there are several others).
Against the US of course. You post the strangest things.
Emails and other stored information stolen, at least. Trump's campaign buying, and possibly blackmailed. The payment? Interesting question: as possibilities we have the firing of Bharara, the altering of the Republican Party's platform relative to Russia, and the diminution of sanctions on Russia, so far. With more to come, apparently.
No one is getting convicted for treason. And it's not only that it would depend on congress. We aren't at war with Russia, and you can't prove intent to overthrow the government.
The Cold War ended in 1990. Good relations with Putin's government could be a very bad thing, depending on the terms. Trump's notion of forming a joint Russian/American cybersecurity force to oversee US government security was not a good sign of things to come.
The stock market is a rich person's bubble, who cares at the moment; the economy is still running on Obama's competent management, as much as he could get done without Congress (much better shape than when he took over); the Middle East looks like it's getting worse again, but we shouldn't blame Trump until we see how he handles things - so far he's been a fuckup of the first water, but he has a history of learning on the job - the question then being what he's up to, what is he trying to do?
He pulled the troops from Iraq, as fast as the Republicans would let him. You disapprove?
The cold war is over. All Trump can do is restart it.
It's easy to establish good relations with other countries if you don't care about what they do. We could have made a treaty with Nazi Germany if we wanted to, would that have been good?