1. Suggesting that Trump's joke about Hillary's "missing emails" was a serious request in an open public forum for Russian assistance is absurd, as confirmed by multiple investigations.
2. So cavorting with hookers while high on coke and toting hand guns is all perfectly legal? Frankly, I certainly hope it is. But what it isn't is a "good look" for the "smartest person" the candidate knows, which would have negatively impacted his chances if it had been given a proper airing. Beyond that, the international dealings that seem suspiciously focused on foreign dignitaries with something to gain with being "in business" with the son of a powerful US politician is, if not evidence of a crime, at least indicative of the sleaziness of the family, which again would have reflected negatively on the candidate if it had been allowed into the (pre-election) discussion.
3. Yes.
The point is that the "establishment" news outlets have again and again and again been shown to have a bias in one political direction, which, of course, is the real reason you are bound and determined to make sure that is the only source considered "acceptable." I reject that as just more left wing attempted censorship designed to protect their propaganda efforts that are fully supported by the mainstream media. Freedom requires that any and all sources be considered only on the basis of their record of factual accuracy and not the left's "opinion" of same.