He was offered a direct bribe for dropping sanctions, and his man apparently said "we'll see", then that exact bribe appears to have been prepared since the election (19.5% of Rosneft being sold through a series of shadow companies). That alone is damning - if Trump lifts the sanctions against Russia, any corroboration of that conversation goes from "dark cloud" to "lock him up". That's just one piece of the dossier, too - if the kompromat is confirmed, Trump's reaction to the release of the dossier argues that it is something to take seriously - I mean, a video of that wouldn't just hurt Trump the President, it would hurt him as a businessman and especially as a reality star - not a lot of networks are going to put him on the air after that. Someone testifying that it happened wouldn't make good kompromat, because it's so ridiculous, but a video is what is claimed.
I did say that you can find reasons to call the advisor choices coincidence; Manafort might be happenstance and Page coincidence, so again, what does that make Stone, Flynn, and any of the other as-yet-unnamed folks who were in contact with Russian intelligence? How out of the loop of his own staff do we have to believe Trump is to claim that he has no ties to Russia?
You also didn't address my other point, which is that Russia seems to be the only major policy area in which he did anything but parrot established views of the far-right (or the GOP more generally). That's also quite damning, and seems to cut against the "clueless Trump" explanation. Unless I'm missing something about the counter-jihadist crowd, the only connection I've seen is the occasional statement that Putin ate Obama's lunch when he invaded the Crimea or did some other BS.
The reality, though is that America under Obama figured out that soft power was far more effective than hard power. They brought Iran's nuclear program down with hackers and sanctions, they slapped down Putin's moves in Ukraine with massive sanctions, and they were generally getting a lot of cooperation from the key world powers, including China. The next step of all that was going to be screwing over bad actors in carbon emissions
and Russia needs oil - Putin is still popular now, but 3-4 more years of declining oil prices and continued sanctions and he'll be killed by his oligarchs. So Hillary really was a bit of an existential threat to Putin personally,
whereas Trump has already destroyed America's ability to project soft power by pissing off every one of our allies and China, and he's got Tillerson running foreign policy and Pruitt about to gut the EPA. We don't need to have a sign contract for Trump's soul to see the writing on the wall here.
This kind of evidence would obviously have Trump in jail for life, we execute murderers with far less solid evidence. Your over-the-top description makes me assume you were joking (a difficult thing to be sure of these days), but the evidence we do have is approaching Watergate levels of certainty. It does still need some more corroboration or nothing will happen with it, but it could be that the only reason we are even able to debate the issue right now is because most of the people debating it are biased to either defend Trump at all costs or attack him at all costs (and thus to consider their own views suspect). I find myself in that second category - the logical part of my brain says to me: the evidence seems clear enough from what we already know that I would rule against Trump if a similar amount of evidence existed in a civil wrongful death suit, but I wouldn't quite be ready to lock him up for life in a criminal murder case, and yet I've already got a negative opinion of Trump and am inclined to believe bad stuff about him. So is my opinion of the evidence biased because of that? I try to dispassionately evaluate it by inserting other figures instead of the ones we know, but that doesn't work because the question is really about the credibility of the sources, and I find it natural to believe that the NYT, WaPo, and CNN have what they say they have (that is, what the article says, even if the headlines are inevitably exaggerated).