First, regarding the subject line, for the most part, the only Trump-related derangement I’ve seen is for Trumpists to ignore reality when it comes to Trump or Democrats. And it does, indeed, seem to be largely permanent, though I have seen some cases of former Trumpists in recovery, so there’s still some hope.

Here you’ve successfully stolen the election, Congress and President […]

Nope. There have been numerous court cases alleging such about the Presidential race, and none of them had any merit and were dismissed either for failing to state a claim, being wrong about the law, lacking sufficient reasonable evidence to support their claims, lacking standing (the least common reason), or some combination of the above, and they have all been ended. Numerous hand and machine recounts were done in the contested states, and none of them differed significantly from the original count. The only known instances of attempted or successful voter fraud or election fraud were by Republicans.

And as for Congress, a lot of votes for Biden voted all Republican downticket, and the run-offs showed no evidence of voter or election fraud by Democrats either.

Additionally, the various Republican election officials and Secretaries of State for each of the contested states have all said that there was no widespread voter or election fraud in their states during the 2020 election.

As for the laws and election-policy-changes being complained about, all of them were also in place for states that went to Trump and to downballot Republicans in that same election, and with one possible exception, all of them were found to be lawful and constitutional, and many of them were in place well before the 2020 election.

So, there is no credible evidence to support a claim of widespread voter and/or election fraud by Democrats that would be enough to have changed the results in any of the federal races in the 2020 election or the Georgia run-off for Senate. In fact, there’s a plethora of evidence to the contrary. As such, no US election was stolen here.

and all that you can write of is TRUMP.

First, they’ve written plenty of articles about the new Congress and administration as well as topics that have little to nothing to do with any Congress or administration, be it this one, the last one, and the one before. So no, this claim is false.

Second, when Trump became President, Techdirt would still write some articles about the Obama administration, so this isn’t something they only do for Trump.

Third, this has some information we didn’t previously know about, so Techdirt couldn’t have written about it before while Trump was still President, and it is still fairly relevant to today, in part because it’s also about what Biden is doing now:

Tell ya again, kid: you need some POSITIVE, not more opinion / ad hom on Trump.

Again, there have been some positive (or neutral) articles recently, and there were some throughout the Trump administration. So, you’re still working from a false premise. If you mean positive pieces about Trump, let me know what good Trump has done first, and then we’ll talk. That said, the only times most journalists may write positive pieces about the last president are when summarizing that President’s legacy right around when they leave office, when the current President does something that makes the last President look good, at least by comparison, or when the current President says something false about the last President. None of those are the case right now with Trump or Biden.

Second, this is still largely an opinion blog, so of course they will write opinions about current and/or recent events as well as compare them to older events. They did the same thing for both Trump and Obama when they were President.

Third, this isn’t an ad hominem argument, really. An ad hominem would be trying to refute what someone said because they are a bad or undesirable person or something. Criticizing someone’s actions and the motivations for those actions is not an ad hominem in itself. For example, saying that evolution is wrong or immoral because Charles Darwin was a racist would be an ad hominem. Saying that Michael Pack is corrupt and abused his power because he spent a lot of taxpayer money trying to weed out anti-Trump people in his cabinet and therefore should not keep or have ever had that position or been able to do those things is not an ad hominem. Not every insult is necessarily an ad hominem.

Finally, technically, this article isn’t really about Trump. It’s about Michael Pack, the former Trump-appointed head of the US Agency for Global Media. You could argue that it is about Trump’s administration, but that’s not quite the same thing as being about Trump himself.

“It truly is insane how obsessed Trumpists are over Hillary’s emails.”

State your evidence that [it] shouldn’t be. Those US Secretary of State emails containing official secrets were apparently intentionally on a server open to the world, YET [the] US gov’t still doesn’t know the contents nor who got them.

1. Actually, that server was no less secure than the one she was supposed to be using. It was not “open to the world”.
2. Several Republican-led congressional investigations into it found no illegal activity.
3. A Republican-led FBI investigated the issue and found no evidence of anything illegal.
4. During the past four years, the Trump administration did nothing to indict or really even investigate Hillary Clinton at all over anything, let alone over those emails, despite saying that they would and having plenty of motive to do so and the power to do so if there was any wrongdoing on her part.
5. Just about every previous Secretary of State who used email did essentially the same thing, including Colin Powell, and they received no repercussions whatsoever. Ivanka Trump also did something similar during the Trump presidency.
6. It was not intentional. The investigations showed that essentially all of the allegedly classified emails were not properly marked to indicate that they were classified or what the classification was, all of them were sent there by others, not sent or solicited by Hillary, and many were improperly claimed to be classified despite not actually containing any classified material. Both the FBI and the congressional hearings on the matter said as much.
7. As implied by point 6 and contrary to your assertions, the US government does (or at least did) know the contents of those emails. Yes, some emails were deleted, but supposedly they were purely personal emails and were not at all work-related. They were also deleted without knowledge of the investigation. Besides, they made up a minority of the emails on that server.
8. The US government also knows (more or less) who got these emails. It doesn’t take forensic science to read the To, From, and Cc lines or to see who, if anyone, Hillary forwarded them to. The only things missing would be what recipients other than Hillary did with them or the Bcc recipients of the original email, and she had no control over those, nor was she responsible for that. And before you say, “But they were on an unsecured server and open to the world, so someone could’ve hacked in and seen them,” again, no they were not unsecured or open to the world (see point 1), but even if they were, the government also checked the private server and found no evidence of intrusion, infection, compromise, or anything else suspicious, so even if it was hypothetically plausible that a hacker obtained access they wouldn’t have had if the emails were on a government server (which it isn’t, really), it doesn’t appear that anyone actually did, so at least with regards to this specific claim, that point is moot.
9. It has been more than five years since the topic of Hillary’s emails popped up, and by all credible accounts (and a number of less credible ones biased against Hillary), there doesn’t seem to have been any damage done to anyone or anything except possibly Hillary’s reputation. The secrets don’t appear to have anything that needed to be classified to protect national security or anything. No one who was not authorized to receive classified information actually accessed these emails. No one was hurt or killed. No money was lost (except in the investigations). Hillary also admitted that it was a mistake and that she learned her lesson, and she no longer holds any public office; she doesn’t even come into the public eye much any more. There has also been no new information or developments or other changes to the story since December 2016. Aside from Ivanka, who wasn’t punished or even investigated, there have been no new comparable situations that have come up to make it relevant to anything today. So, why keep bringing it up? What good does it do, especially now?

Your "writing" is dead easy since don’t bother with facts. IF had to come up substantive proposals, you’d be stumped.

The only ones not bothering with facts here are you and Michael Pack. That said, this is meant to be an opinion piece, not just a blind recitation of the facts, so yeah, you’re going to get more than just facts here; you’ll also see opinions and maybe some speculation. Welcome to Techdirt. Clearly you’re new here.

As for coming up with substantive proposals, Techdirt is not a lobbying body, a politician, a holder of any political office, involved in government contracts, a government agency/agent, a judge, or a clerk for any of the above. They don’t have any obligation to come up with substantive proposals because that’s not their job. Most journalists and writers of opinion pieces don’t come up with substantive proposals. Why would you expect Techdirt to be any different?

That said, Techdirt has come up with substantive proposals for several things in the past, such as police accountability (especially qualified immunity), net neutrality, section 230 (and yes, “leave it alone” is a substantive proposal), copyright (especially the DMCA, which they recently sent several ideas about reforming to a representative), patents, and anti-SLAPP laws. So clearly, when it comes to coming up with substantive proposals, they clearly aren’t stumped as you claim.

Finally, what “substantive proposals” would be made here on this issue? This is all about one guy’s attempt to make the USAGM and several things that come out of it like VoA into pro-Trump propaganda outlets, and that has been dealt with by Biden, who has removed the man responsible (among others) and is seeking replacements, including people who quit or were fired because of that guy. Maybe have some sort of oversight committee regarding how finances get used by that department? A bad actor would probably just gut the think to being useless.