Of course corruption should be looked into. Why are you guys dismissing the possible corruption of Biden in favor of the non-crimes Trump allegedly committed? It’s so odd. — NOS4A2

First, I have not dismissed "the possible corruption of Biden". The ambiguity regarding which Biden the accusations are aimed at should not be overlooked. What I said was:

Even if Hunter Biden and those who hired him are guilty of some unnamed impropriety, this does not exonerate Trump.

The investigation into Trump is underway but already you have determined that Trump did not commit any crimes. Once again:

This is nothing more than a childish and inept diversion tactic.

To be clear, I am referring here not just to Trump but to you.

Social conservatism? I am socially liberal. — NOS4A2

Can you not google "American liberal" to get the meaning? Is google banned where you are?

Investigations of Trump and impeachment rumblings have been occurring since before Trump was even in office. How long are you allowed to kick the can down that road before I’m allowed to suspect you really have nothing.

Can you not google "American liberal" to get the meaning? Is google banned where you are?

Why would I google “American liberal”? I use duck-duck-go.

Oh, ok, gotcha, thanks for that Echarmion! I think I'm remembering some of that...

I don't know why folks can't call it like it is. I mean , I was embarrassed for the country when Clinton and Monica 'hooked-up' in the oval office (do it after hours in a hotel at least).

I think with Trump, the negatives are outweighing the positives; he's not good for our country. I was praying for the guy that he could break free from some of the old political paradigm's that he said he was going to challenge...but he's just part of the problem now/not the solution.

He's part of the Swamp Team.

Social conservatism? I am socially liberal. — NOS4A2

But your definition of socially liberal is different from that of people you call "progressives". So, what's your take on Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson? Do you perhaps watch certain political Youtubers?

You scrupolously avoid outright stating any of your policy preferences, with the notable exception of your free speech absolutism. But everything I can glean from your behavior matches up more or less exactly with the attitudes of people who follow Ben Shapiro, or again certain Youtube "pundits".

Why would I google “American liberal”? I use duck-duck-go. — NOS4A2

Have you ever used Google?

I’m not in the habit of adopting another’s position, especially from youtubers. I read books.

Anything else you need clarified before your fantasies run rampant?

I used to.

I’m not in the habit of adopting another’s position — NOS4A2

Funnily enough, the insistence that one is an independent thinker is also part of the brand. But I'm not expecting you to give me a straight answer anyways

Investigations of Trump and impeachment rumblings have been occurring since before Trump was even in office. How long are you allowed to kick the can down that road before I’m allowed to suspect you really have nothing. — NOS4A2

You are "allowed" to suspect whatever you want, but when you say:

... the non-crimes Trump allegedly committed — NOS4A2

you are making a factual, if ambiguous, claim. He is not being accused of non-crimes. An impeachment investigation is into high crimes and misdemeanors. We really do not know the extent of what he has done. That is the purpose of the investigation. What we do know is that he is doing everything he can to keep the truth from coming to light. This alone is enough to raise suspicion that he is trying to hide something.

Funnily enough, the insistence that one is an independent thinker is also part of the brand. But I'm not expecting you to give me a straight answer anyways

You’re going to believe what you want anyways.

you are making a factual, if ambiguous, claim. He is not being accused of non-crimes. An impeachment investigation is into high crimes and misdemeanors. We really do not know the extent of what he has done. That is the purpose of the investigation. What we do know is that he is doing everything he can to keep the truth from coming to light. This alone is enough to raise suspicion that he is trying to hide something.

Then what crimes or misdemeanours is he being accused of? What is the probable cause? In the real world we cannot go about investigating people if we do not have a reason to do so. What is the reason to do so?

Then what crimes or misdemeanours is he being accused of? What is the probable cause? In the real world we cannot go about investigating people if we do not have a reason to do so. What is the reason to do so? — NOS4A2

You’re going to believe what you want anyways.

I suspect you know better. One does not first have to be found guilty before an investigation is opened into whether or not he is guilty.

I suspect you don’t know at all. Once again, there has to first be a crime until someone can be guilty or not guilty of it.

Then what crimes or misdemeanours is he being accused of? — NOS4A2

Once again, that is what the investigation intends to uncover. Following the Trump playbook you want to declare that such an investigation is unnecessary, as if he cannot be found guilty because if he was he would already have been found guilty, now hurry up and declare the case closed lest something be found.

Once again, that is what the investigation intends to uncover. Following the Trump playbook you want to declare that such an investigation is unnecessary, as if he cannot be found guilty because if he was he would already have been found guilty, now hurry up and declare the case closed lest something be found.

So no crime and no probable cause that he committed a crime. Just an arbitrary impeachment inquiry.

What do you think when the whistleblower and IG give testimony?

Do you think the transcript was watered down much like Nixon did, without the audio tapes?

BTW, why, I forgot to ask you, why didn't Trump give a personal interview/testimony during the Muller report?

Was he scared? He said he would welcome it. Why did he lie (again)?

So no crime and no probable cause that he committed a crime. Just an arbitrary impeachment inquiry. — NOS4A2

How do you know that there has been no crime and no probable cause for an investigation? If he did nothing wrong and there is nothing to hide then why stonewall? Mueller was quite clear that he would not indict a sitting president, but that there were serious improprieties that should be investigated by Congress. In addition, several people working for Trump were indicted, tried, found guilty, and sent to jail. Mueller''s testimony was sufficient to lead some who were opposed to impeachment to change their minds. Others remained opposed, but not because they found no evidence of wrongdoing but because of political considerations and the consequences of the Senate refusing to impeach. Many more changed their minds in the last few days when it came to light that Trump, without proper authorization from Congress, withheld military funding to Ukraine to pressure them to investigate his Democratic opponent. The whistleblower's information appears to extend beyond the phone call. Trump tried to prevent him from testifying but the Senate was unanimous in passing a resolution that he must be allowed to testify before Senate and House Intelligence Committees.

I just read the Washington Post. Looks like the whistleblower did not base their concern on that call. There were other calls.....Trump's in trouble now.

How do you know that there has been no crime and no probable cause for an investigation? If he did nothing wrong and there is nothing to hide then why stonewall? Mueller was quite clear that he would not indict a sitting president, but that there were serious improprieties that should be investigated by Congress. In addition, several people working for Trump were indicted, tried, found guilty, and sent to jail. Mueller''s testimony was sufficient to lead some who were opposed to impeachment to change their minds. Others remained opposed, but not because they found no evidence of wrongdoing but because of political considerations and the consequences of the Senate refusing to impeach. Many more changed their minds in the last few days when it came to light that Trump, without proper authorization from Congress, withheld military funding to Ukraine to pressure them to investigate his Democratic opponent. The whistleblower's information appears to extend beyond the phone call. Trump tried to prevent him from testifying but the Senate was unanimous in passing a resolution that he must be allowed to testify before Senate and House Intelligence Committees.

When we accuse someone of high crimes and misdemeanors there must be high crimes and misdemeanors with which to accuse him. You cannot just impeach a political figure for no reason!!! What are the high crimes and misdemeanors?

According to the transcript, Trump's call was regarding past activity about matters involving the previous administration. The parts about “pressure” (Ukrainian President just said there was no pressure), election meddling in 2020 (the call regarded the previous election), withholding funding funding (a routine job of the president), are invented whole-cloth.

You mentioned deregulation and previously defended the Trump administration's dismantling of LGBT protections. That seems more like libertarianism than liberalism.

They have been conflated but I refuse the label. — NOS4A2

They’ve not been conflated in the USA, and I believe you’ve claimed to be an American. And it’s not about labeling, it’s about what you value and your moral framework. American liberalism and libertarianism are quite different in these regards. If you’ve expressed your true opinions and beliefs in this topic then you are definitely not an American liberal, but could well be libertarian.

I just read the Washington Post. Looks like the whistleblower did not base their concern on that call. There were other calls.....Trump's in trouble now. — 3017amen

I think we will just have to wait to see how things develop before concluding that Trump is in trouble now. Even if there is ample and damning evidence, unless the Senate decides to take action the consequences remain unclear. It will be up to the voters. If there are enough from the key states who believe he has made America great again, they will ignore or minimize the importance of whatever is uncovered.

What do you think when the whistleblower and IG give testimony?

Do you think the transcript was watered down much like Nixon did, without the audio tapes?

There is always the possibility the transcripts were altered. They weren’t even verbatim.

BTW, why, I forgot to ask you, why didn't Trump give a personal interview/testimony during the Muller report?

To avoid a perjury trap.

They’ve not been conflated in the USA, and I believe you’ve claimed to be an American. And it’s not about labeling, it’s about what you value and your moral framework. American liberalism and libertarianism are quite different in these regards. If you’ve expressed your true opinions and beliefs in this topic then you are definitely not an American liberal, but could well be libertarian.

I am not an “American liberal” and have never stated otherwise.

One Republican senator told me if it was a secret vote, 30 Republican senators would vote to impeach Trump

So Republicans are being hypocrites in accusing Democrats of playing political games? They secretly believe that Democrats are right in their claims that Trump ought be impeached but because he's on their "team" they pretend otherwise in public?

I am not an “American liberal” and have never stated otherwise. — NOS4A2

No need to state the obvious.

When we accuse someone of high crimes and misdemeanors there must be high crimes and misdemeanors with which to accuse him. — NOS4A2

I suspect you know better. One does not first have to be found guilty before an investigation is opened into whether or not he is guilty.

You cannot just impeach a political figure for no reason!!! — NOS4A2

Trump has not been impeached and it seems likely that he will not be, but that has little to do with whether or not he is guilty. As has been pointed out, there is plenty of evidence leading to the need for an investigation, but you close your eyes and ears and pretend that an innocent man is going to be impeached "for no reason!!!".

What are the high crimes and misdemeanors? — NOS4A2

Once again, that is something that cannot be established before the investigation into what they may be has been completed. We do not yet have the full story and if Trump has his way we never will. And that in itself is a crime, to wit: obstruction of justice.

The parts about “pressure” (Ukrainian President just said there was no pressure), — NOS4A2

Are you that naive or simple-minded or just disingenuous? He has to curry Trump's favor. Of course he is not going to contradict him!

withholding funding funding (a routine job of the president) — NOS4A2

Again I must ask if you that naive or simple-minded or just disingenuous? It is anything but routine for a president to without military funds allocated by Congress for personal political purposes. If we look at Trump's reasons for doing so we don't get a straight answer from him.

I suspect you know better. One does not first have to be found guilty before an investigation is opened into whether or not he is guilty.

I suspect you don’t know at all. Once again, there has to first be a crime until someone can be guilty or not guilty of it. Are you simple minded or just disingenuous?

I suspect you don’t know at all. Once again, there has to first be a crime until someone can be guilty or not guilty of it. — NOS4A2

An impeachable offense need not be a crime. Whatever it is you think you know, you should know this if you wish to carry on an informed discussion.