No, I very much did clearly state Trump brought it upon himself, here "explained by Trump bringing that upon himself in am environment that he knows nothing of and knows not how to handle" ie his own actions blithering about in the dark.
The system taking an antagonistic approach to him is not an outlier though, that's not reserved for Trump. Whether it be the GOP or Democratic nominees, each sides corporate donors have their preference and therefore throw their weight and "bias" behind their favoured representative.
You're claiming that Trump received special treatment outside of this already existing political machination. Once Trump won the GOP primary that same GOP political machination threw their weight behind Trump, it's no different to any other candidate who wins a primary they're not expected to.
I'd tend to think that any campaign that knowingly sought help from a foreign power, who had been that nations biggest rival over the course of century, would garner quite a lot of interest. The fact that several individuals, as a consequence of investigations, were actually charged and convicted would suggest it was a bloody big story and deserved the attention it got.
As far as Michael flynn is concerned, unfortunately this is an actual whataboutism debate and I can just as easily point to the Benghazi report to again underline this isn't outlier behaviour in the political machination.
And I don't need to prove anything. The onus is on you, you're making the assertion, innocent until proven guilty remember?
But again I will link to a bias in defending Trump and his actions and claiming he was unfairly treated. And I will address that being a member of a particular political party is not an indication of lack of bias eg a former leader of the Labor party who now is a state senator for a far right party, Mark Latham.
this really is a whole lot of nothing
you clearly state that Trump brought it on himself with his antagonistic approach to the media and I believe there were particular interests in going after Trump and I have provided examples of what I believe is the unbalanced approach when it comes to the treatment of Trump... but I have at least been prepared to concede that there can be other factors --> something lefties are incapable of doing
now, with regard to the Republican and Democratic machines throwing their weight behind their candidates, this is true and I will go further and concede the reluctance of the likes of Cruz, Rubio, Kasich etc. to immediately support Trump after he became the Republican nominee is likely due to a personal rather than establishment motive... but there are issues and interests in the US that go beyond the party divide... for example, JFK spoke of the need for a Medicare for all system in the US as far back as the 1960's and yet, no such system exists despite plenty of Democratic and Republican presidents since... why? there is too much money in the pharmaceutical industry to allow the government to cut out the middle man and Big Pharma has in effect bought out both sides of the aisle... hence, the Bernie Sanders, the squad, the progressive push for Medicare for all, force the vote etc. is all bullsh*t... never going to happen
another such interest which crosses the political divide is the military... the US has been aggressive in their foreign policy throughout the world from when Truman - wrongfully IMO - dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and it hasn't really mattered who was in power to see the influence of this on their foreign policy... in fact, the two modern presidents that are viewed as the worst are Carter and Trump and from memory, they are the only two not to involve the US in a new conflict during their presidency... this is why I brought up Greenwald earlier in this thread because he theorised that at least part of the reason all mainstream media was going after Biden this last week or so was the US military industrial complex wanted to stay in Afghanistan
and you get nowhere with the Russian collusion aspect... the Clintons had their pay to play with donations made to their foundation for years by foreign governments, regimes, NGOs etc. and in fact the whole Russian collusion started with Hillary's campaign worried about her own links to and going soft on Russia (eg. the Uranium deal while she was Secretary of State) and so threw all that onto Trump
"whataboutism" is just a deflection... you live in a country in which the legal system is predicated on precedent - "stare decisis"... determining matters in line with how like situations have previously been decided... and that is if the situations are even somewhat comparable, which I don't see how they are --> an attack on a US ambassador overseas vs the manipulation of the justice system to investigate a political opponent domestically... the Michael Flynn investigation and prosecution was a disgrace and unworthy of a nation supposedly with the rule of law - the FBI tampered with evidence, Sztrok, his FBI mistress, entrapping Flynn, abusing the FISA court and warrant system, deliberately ignoring the fact that the subject of the warrant was a CIA asset (?) etc... it was so bad, the US government withdrew charges AFTER Flynn pleaded guilty
this is why the US is so f*+#ed up at the moment... people are so tribal in their thinking (like you) that they cannot take a principled position and make concessions where concessions should be made... rather they simply act in bad faith and side with like minded people regardless of the merits of the matter
so, there is no onus on you and the other cancel culture crew to substantiate any of the rubbish you have spouted in this thread? well, isn't that convenient... anyone that disagrees with you is a sheep or a cultist etc. without any need for you to prove anything... Orwellian almost... like something out of "Animal Farm" with the "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others"
and the "innocent until proven guilty" is a criminal law presumption
