There’s a whole mueller report that was started and run by GOP. Person who started it was Rosenstein, a republican. Who picked Mueller another Republican. Why would they fake evidence against their own president?

Again, "Muller has the evidence!" is pointing at someone and making a claim that never seems to have been backed up.

It seems to be rather hard to actually cite this mountain of evidence without looking like a partisan hack.

This is idle speculation at best. It doesn’t attach to evidence, and it cannot be dispositive.

Mueller charged Russians for the hack.

Indicted. Famously prosecutors can indict ham sandwiches. Conviction is different. No such thing here.

He convicted everyone that they could actually arrest.

If you twist it around enough, it sounds substantial. Then we have to slowly and tediously dig out that your end claim has utterly nothing to do with your beginning claim. Not the same countries, people, timelines, relationships, nothing.