The question is whether Trump has/had improper relations with Russia.

"super illegal"?  Is that some new classification of crime?  Either what he did was legal or illegal.  Maybe in your view, President Trump may have done things that you might consider to be immoral or unethical, but "super illegal" as if your inferring what he did was slightly illegal?

This is still not finished, but from this opening testimony, if I were a Trump hater, I wouldn't expect much to celebrate, but rather should probably be bracing for impact as I think there could be quite a bit more to come that could actually be far more damaging to the Dems that comes out of this. 

Sad thing with most of this is that our society is founded on an innocent until proven guilty concept.  However the liberals of this country have deemed it appropriate to take a stance where you are "guilty until you can prove yourself innocent, and then we will still call you guilty because we hate you" and apply that to EVERYONE who does not share their same world views ON EVERYTHING.  I don't care if you like or don't like President Trump, this vile venom is disgusting and anti-American at our core.  This is not, nor ever has been a true Liberal point of view but rather a flat out socialist, Marxist and communist mindset that has infected and taken over the Democrat party and liberalism in America today.  It is vile and disgusting beyond words.  If I were a true liberal or Democrat I would be EXTREMELY pissed off by this and would want to rebuke this mindset and regain what the Democrat party should be focused on.  Fortunately for the screwed up Republican party is that the Dems are more screwed up and are imploding even worse.   

I guess people don't understand the levels of importance of illegal acts.  There are large scandals and small ones.   Things someone does that is borderline illegal but not quite chargeable.  This latter one denotes a character of someone.  While they may not have directly broke the law they are a bad person and should feel bad.   
I am a strong supporter of innocent until found guilty.  Even to the point of not announcing arrests at all until conviction.  Bill Cosby court issue should never be known to the public.  Until he is found guilty.  If he is found innocent the public should be none the wiser. But to ignore what trump did would be dumb.  The way everything is handled now is horrible.  This investigation should of been held secretly so they could find out information and build a case before publicly announcing the results if there was a crime.  The man is the president of the united states he is held to a different level of accountability than the rest of the public.  This is also an important thing to note.  Also that he publicly fired comey and is a public figure.

I don't know what was said behind the closed door hearing so I don't want to speculate on what else could have come out.

I think the alleged Trump Russia connection is not limited to the election. The question is whether Trump has/had improper relations with Russia and this goes beyond just the question of election tampering.

One story I remember hearing said that Russia allegedly did try to hack into voting machines. The fact that Russia did not change a single vote of course has no bearing on whether they tried. Attempted crimes are still crimes for example.

I also am not sure where you are saying that Comey said there was no evidence of a Trump/Russia connection when he did testify to this:
“I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals,” he told lawmakers. “And it raised questions in my mind again whether or not the Russians were able to gain the cooperation of those individuals.”

Where did you get that quote from im looking at the full transcript and i cant find it http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295

What Russia may or may not have attempted to do in the election is a completely separate topic.
There is no evidence that Trump or the campaign colluded with anyone to influence the election.
No evidence = no reason to keep talking about it.  After a year, do you really think there is evidence that hasn't been leaked?
"I was concerned" and "it raised questions" are not evidence.  That's nothing more than suspicion based on no probable cause.  It has no weight.

Where did you get that quote from im looking at the full transcript and i cant find it http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295

[Nixon youtube video stating "I am not a crook", etc.]

The more I hear of Comey's testimony and analysis of it the worse things look for Trump.

So many of the most important questions in the matter Comey stated that it could not be answered in an open session.
-Was Flynn part of the Russia investigation? Closed session
-Why did the AG recuse himself? Closed session
-Did Trump's administration create a back channel with Russia? Closed session
-Was Trump personally under investigation? Closed session.
-Do you believe Trump colluded with Russia? Closed session.

That is a lot of red flags for me. If the answer were simply no, that Trump was not under investigation, then why not just say so? Maybe, just maybe there are perfectly reasonable answers to all of these that just can't be made public but I don't know how probable that is.
Now some will say that Comey told Trump multiple times that he was not under investigation but I consider that relatively meaningless given Comey's job and the nature of such an investigation. Law enforcement officers are allowed to lie to people for starters and in an investigation such as this is would make perfect sense that you would need to keep the investigation secret. If you are investigating someone, especially someone with the country at their fingertips, you do not want to let them know they are under investigation.

The public testimony certainly did not clear Trump, it just left us knowing that most of the biggest questions were not answered publicly. I think Trump's request to drop the investigation is both incredibly unethical and borderline illegal. Depending on what the answers were in the closed session, I think it may be conceivable that there is enough to impeach the president. Heck, we impeached Clinton over a lie about a sex scandal, why not Trump for something much more serious?

Now I do say this all with the reservation that the answers in the closed setting could change my position. Like I said, if the whole picture is viewed it might all make perfect sense but I doubt that is the case and right now the testimony makes me suspect Trump more, not less. When it comest to the question of whether Trump obstructed justice, I get that it comes down to he said/she said  but it would seem that incident is just the tip of the ice berg. Heck, in a lot of criminal investigations it comes down to the cops word vs the accused word but generally the cop's word is accepted as true over the accused given the nature of the whole thing.

Is that just some random historical footage you posted for no reason or is it intended to cast aspersions upon someone currently alive? If so, who? Comey? Brennan? Clapper?

Only President Trump and a few select individuals know the true meaning of the video.

So now Diane Feinstein is saying there should be an investigation into Loretta Lynch...

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/11/dem-senator-wants-investigation-into-lynch-interference-on-clinton-email-investigation/