It's interesting that you do not deny that Putin's interest in relieving the economic sanctions trumps (pun intended) his interest in crushing Isis. Ok. We are in agreement there.
You seem like a bright fellow, so you'll probably recognize the fallacy you've presented in your own post regarding Podesta's lobbying firm taking money from a Russian bank. Did that money actually win them influence over Hillary Clinton? Apparently not.
According to your prolific tirades against Clinton on Slashdot, she's a war mongering hawk trying to start wars with Russia. Donald Trump, in contrast, has the potential to (using your words)--
...join hands with Russia and Turkey to crush Isis.
You are trying to paint Clinton and Podesta as puppets of Russian lobbying money, while claiming the DNC also promotes Putin as a boogeyman. Kind of emphasizes the lack of real influence this money had on Clinton. You repeatedly reference this Saudi oil money going to the Clinton Foundation and paying for Chelsea's wedding, but where are the details on the quid pro quo? What was gained for them or the Russian bank?
I think we're getting tired of your broken record of "yeah, but Clinton collected money from xyz." Why don't you build up a stronger case for why Trump should hold hands with Putin to destroy Isis? We would all like to see your references to the great and wonderful things Vladimir Putin has done that would help explain how his involvement in Syria is only out of a humanitarian interest. I am very curious to hear more about your rationale for Donald Trump developing closer relations with Vladimir Putin.