>>No. But off the top of my head - short list:

Your short list looks like somebody wrote down every imagined fault they could come up without regard for the normal expectation of evidence.

The expectation seems to be that throwing lots of mud sometimes results in investigations and hopefully some will stick.

That's corrupt. It also paralyses the necessary business of government.

>>Senate Intelligence Committee, House Intelligence Committee, Senate Judiciary Committee, House Judiciary Committee, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee , Justice Department, FBI, etc etc etc they all have invesitgations going on in one form or another about Trump (and/or Trump officials) and Russia. Dude there is too much for me to list here, you'll just have to look it all up. There are quite a few different targets (although they all end up back to Trump of course) and naturally some are going to overlap.

Yes, but neither you nor it seems they can identify a statute he's alleged to have breached. That's my point. You do know the definition of a witch hunt, don't you?

JR>>Do you have any specific statutes that TRUMP is supposed to have breached to explain your diatribes against him?
VA>>See the above short-list

I think this is the disconnect: an impressively long list of unsubstantiated allegations is not a list of breached statutes. It's all cowboy hat but no cattle.