A lot of interesting contributions in this thread.
Some people -- not necessarily those here but possibly a few -- have a confused understanding of the word "Truth".
To put it in easily understood layman's language, there is a CSI view of things and a judicial jury trial perspective. It may escape some as to the well-worn distinction between "innocent" and "not guilty", but it is clear that our judicial system is biased to protect the innocent, and we accept that fact that some guilty parties go free.
Consider (did I ever bring this up in the past?) the murder trial of the accused in the Emmett Till murder case. The defendants were all acquitted -- being white in a community dominated by whites. Advised of their rights against double jeopardy, the perpetrators were interviewed by a national news magazine to casually and candidly explain how the killed Till, why the killed him, and every other aspect that would warranted a guilty verdict if the admissions had been presented in court.
The CSI perspective is a matter of science, facts, logical inference and acceptance of tinctures of uncertainty, but the judicial concept of "reasonable doubt" can lead to dismissal of the blood-stained socks in the OJ Simpson trial -- mostly a question of chain of custody in that case.
Yet -- and of course -- Trump was judged to be a rapist or at least guilty of sexual assault in the civil trial awarding damages to E. Jean Carroll. This judicial outcome was enough for me to conclude that Trump is a rapist -- in at least a single instance of rape.
As to these other accusations or allegations, they may be True, but I admit the uncertainties: it "might not" be True.
Consider this. No prosecutor worth his salt is going to bring charges against someone unless he has a very good chance of winning at trial. Thus, there must be plentiful facts buttressed by ample logical inferences. We have Trump charged with 94 felony counts, in about five jurisdictions including local, state and federal. He was convicted of 34 of those counts -- felony falsification of records -- by Alvin Bragg. Those convictions also gave assistance to Letitia James in her civil lawsuit against Trump for defrauding the state of New York. Other charges were more serious, but the prosecutions were obstructed -- for instance by the rulings of Judge Aileen Cannon, whose wisdom was disparaged by a three judge appeals court panel of Republican judicial appointments.
This made it necessary that the presidential election itself became a sort of jury trial, but the "jurors" were not required to sit around the table, know each other and look each other in the eye. So the election itself seems to follow a parallel of the Emmett Till case.
YOUR "President" of MY country is a criminal by the best attention I can give to the facts, common sense and simple statistical understanding that you can't have a conspiracy proven unless somebody talks among large numbers of prospective conspirators -- making "the talk" likely if the conspiracy exists, and you can't have so many felony charges be "political" in five independent jurisdictions.
He's a criminal. And since that is the way our judicial system seems to protect us, I won't accept the legitimacy of his presidency no matter how many chuckleheads voted for him. If the Judiciary and Congress can't get rid of him, then get out the pitchforks and AR-15s and "Overthrow any criminal regime by any necessary means."
Perhaps a joke is in order, or a reference to an old show in the golden age of television -- "I Remember Mama" -- in which the bespectacled character of a woman's son is constantly in tears, saying "Nobody loves me! Everybody hates me!"
Trump's transgressions are so numerous and well-established, how could anyone see it differently, except for the lame-brain chuckleheads who continue to support him?