So saying it is "glaringly obvious" that Trump committed crimes just doesn't work when all you will do is repeat the accusations and the arguments of prosecution, while remaining wholly ignorant or at least reticent of the defense. — NOS4A2

You jump to the conclusion that I am simply parroting the prosecution. Understandable, since you simply regurgitate the unsupportable "witchhunt" claims of Trump and his propoganda machine.

I've actually considered the evidence, and I referenced some of it. Trump unequivocally lost the 2020 election, but he spread the falsehood that it was stolen.

He lied about what people said to him. Examples: Rusty Bowers and Brad Raffensberger.

He attempted to get the acting AG and deputy AG to lie: “just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and Republican congressmen". He refused, and Trump nearly replaced him with a sycophants that would do what he wanted.

He tried to pressure Pence into illegally rejecting electoral votes.

He pressured Raffensberger (among others) to overturn the election. When you previously claimed Trump was just asking for an investigation, I asked you to provide quotes of Trump's that supported your claim. You gave me nothing.

Trump was told by 2 AGs, White House Counsel, and 2 independent research organizations there wasn't sufficient fraud to overturn the election. He retold the lie about the State Farm allegation soon after Barr told him it was "bullshit", and repeated this lie on 1/6.

There can be no positive interpretation of Trump's spreading the falsehoods. Given his history of fraud (including, but not limited to,
Trump U, Trump foundation, tax fraud), and other obvious lies (e.g. denying knowledge of Cohen's payments to Stormy), the best explanation is that he knowingly lied. The alternative is that he's either irrational or exceedingly stupid. I've brought this up to you before, and you've never replied to it. So which is it? What positive explanation can you put forth?

I haven't even touched on his multiple instances of. obstruction of justice. Mueller vol ume 2 describes the evidence for his obstruction of his investigation. Barr's dropping the case doesn't mean the crimes didn't occur. Go ahead and defend the legality of what Trump did regarding Manafort - after you read the report. (Restain yourself from excusing Trump's criminality based on him being pissed off about the Russia investigation; obstruction of justice does not become acceptable on the basis of righteous indignation).

He clearly obstructed justice when he defied a lawful subpoena for classified documents. He hid documents from his lawyer. Rather than put forward a real defense, he lied to the public about the search, labelling it a "raid" and falsely claimed agents were authorized to kill him. Those two lies aren't crimes, but they are examples of his approach: commit crimes while inflating his cult members with propoganda.

You've alleged Smith's prosecution was "political" - but there's no evidence of it. Crimes were committed, crimes were investigated, and 4 grand juries agreed. Unprecedented? Sure. We've never before had a criminal as President.

What exculpatory evidence has Trump put forth? Nothing. He just says everyone else lied, and he repeays the lie about the 2020 election being stolen. Of course, he has some level of immunity - but immunity doesn't equate to innocence.

Now make your case. Point to evidence that supports your allegations. If you don't, it will be glaringly obvious which one of us is depending solely on "propoganda".