Once again, there has to first be a crime until someone can be guilty or not guilty of it. — NOS4A2

There are a lot of crimes someone can be guilty of. Like murder. That's a crime that exists.

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.

Crime, misdemeanors, offence, action, anything. There has to be something Trump may have done in order for him to be guilty or not guilty of it. What is it? You can’t just arbitrarily investigate people you don’t like if you have no reason to believe they have done something wrong. What is it?

Here’s Schiff’s fantastic take on the transcript.

This is pure fantasy.

There has to be something Trump may have done in order for him to be guilty or not guilty of it. What is it? — NOS4A2

You are dancing around while trying to ignore the mounting evidence that an investigation is warranted, and more and more it appears to a Saint Vitus dance. Several of us have pointed to reasons why he should be investigated. Since it is evident that you have nothing substantive to add I am not going to continue indulging you.

It seems likely that whatever happens you will attempt to spin it to protect Trump. When he said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue no doubt he had those like you in mind.

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.

Why would you or he think that? I'm confused...

I believe it was Giuliani, Trump’s lawyer, who thought the Russia investigation wasn’t a real investigation. Rather, it was a fishing expedition of sorts, where the investigation itself results in process crimes, like with the jailing of Papadopoulos. He and others worried they were setting such a trap for Trump.

You are dancing around while trying to ignore the mounting evidence that an investigation is warranted, and more and more it appears to a Saint Vitus dance. Several of us have pointed to reasons why he should be investigated. Since it is evident that you have nothing substantive to add I am not going to continue indulging you.

It seems likely that whatever happens you will attempt to spin it to protect Trump. When he said he could shout someone on 5th Avenue no doubt he had those like you in mind.

You have merely repeated the claims of Democrats. There’s nothing substantive to that. This transcript, if true, refutes the claims of democrats and their reasons for an impeachment inquiry. So perhaps that’s why we’re back to previous Democrat spin about Mueller investigation, kicking the can back to Russia gate.

A trap, call me naive I don't get it? I mean there were at least six people from his campaign that were found guilty of wrongdoing some of which are in jail.

Was he afraid to tell the truth you think?

BTW, why, I forgot to ask you, why didn't Trump give a personal interview/testimony during the Muller report? — 3017amen

From what I read, Trump was willing. No doubt he thinks he can talk his way out of anything. If it is was only his personal lawyers who prevented him from doing so that would be one thing, but if they were not then this raises grave questions of where their loyalty lies - with Trump or with the country. They know that Trump cannot keep his mouth shut, that he is a compulsive liar, and that he would both perjure and betray himself if given the opportunity.

A trap, call me naive I don't get it? I mean there were at least six people from his campaign that were found guilty of wrongdoing some of which are in jail.

Was he afraid to tell the truth you think?

A process crime is an offence against the process. You could go to jail for saying something false, like Papadopoulos, who got some dates wrong.

It’s too risky to be interviewed.

... it's a shame. The guy can't be trusted.

It sounds like if it's risky, then he obviously knew he did wrong.

By almost all standards Trump is unsuited to be president, except by one, and that’s the only one that counts: He is the lawful president. The calls for impeachment that keep popping up every time he does something improper, which is pretty much all the time, are attempts to deny that fact. True, the president can indeed be removed from office by the same law that put him there, but to avoid serious damage to the credibility of the constitution and the legitimacy of the American form of democracy, only very serious and obvious crimes should be committed before that happens. Nixon was a burglar and so far Trump has not been accused of anything that could come even close to that.

Unfortunately the constitution is vague when stating the sufficient reasons for impeachment, but it does say “high crimes”, whatever that is. Well, trying to persuade the Ukrainian president to give information about a political opponent is a pretty indecent thing to do, but to call it a “high crime” would be vastly exaggerated.

The constitution of the United States is the one stable thing amidst the messy Trumpism of today. The opposition should focus on Trump’s outrageous policies instead of trying to catch him by bending the law.

It sounds like if it's risky, then he obviously knew he did wrong.

That’s a common media talking point, but a non-sequitur of the highest order.

If you're child thought it was too risky to confront you with wrongdoing, what would you think?

Great points. I'm going to make a bold prediction. The house will vote to impeach him, it will go to the Senate and die-off; however, the public sentiment will change such that they will lose all confidence and he will lose re-election.

It will be more or less a protest vote. Sad but true.

If you're child thought it was too risky to confront you with wrongdoing, what would you think?

If my child’s lawyer advised him not to talk to me because I was investigating him for reasons of which there was no underlying crime, I would think he was pretty smart for playing it carefully.

Why would your child need a lawyer?

Why would your child need a lawyer?

So that your question might be analogous and relevant to the topic.

Are you a radical right-winger?

You have merely repeated the claims of Democrats. — NOS4A2

So, you ask what he did wrong to warrant an investigation but disregard the allegations of the very people who are investigating him. But even if you are incapable of seeing the lapse in logic, Mueller is not a Democrat. A fact that Trump and his lap dogs have done everything they can to obscure.

You cover your eyes and ears and claim there is nothing to see or hear.

Your arguments have become more and more tenuous. I would say that you need to step up your game, but it appears that you have already overplayed your hand. In this case I cannot agree with Leiber and Stoller or Peggy Lee - if that's all there is then stop dancing.

Are you a radical right-winger?

I’ve already answered this question.

Did you answer me I don't remember?

If your wife was president and you found out she was paying men off to silence them how would you feel about that?

Oh sorry I remember, I think you used a euphemism for an extremist.

You didn't answer these yet:

Have you check the deficit lately?

Do you like his character viz. women?

Do you think he is a racist?

Is he really a good business man? He went belly-up numerous times; said in the campaign he was 'the king of debt, and settled out of court for discriminating against blacks. I have more facts if you want them.

How about at least 6 people from his campaign either in jail or otherwise pleaded guilty of wrong doing...

Are those the results a staunch member of the Grand Old Party would support?

You ok with that?

So, you ask what he did wrong to warrant an investigation but disregard the allegations of the very people who are investigating him. But even if you are incapable of seeing the lapse in logic, Mueller is not a Democrat. A fact that Trump and his lap dogs have done everything they can to obscure.

You cover your eyes and ears and claim there is nothing to see or hear.

Your arguments have become more and more tenuous. I would say that you need to step up your game, but it appears that you have already overplayed your hand. In this case I cannot agree with Leiber and Stoller or Peggy Lee - if that's all there is then stop dancing.

No, I’m not disregarding the allegations. We’re talking about the impeachment inquiry, and the allegations of democrats regarding their impeachment inquiry. What does Mueller have to do with it? I already said that if the transcript was true, the allegations are refuted.

You can’t even properly represent my arguments, let alone prove they are tenuous.

Why isn't Mexico paying for the wall?

Oh sorry I remember, I think you used a euphemism for an extremist.

You didn't answer these yet:

Have you check the deficit lately?

Do you like his character viz. women?

Do you think he is a racist?

Is he really a good business man? He went belly-up numerous times; said in the campaign he was 'the king of debt, and settled out of court for discriminating against blacks. I have more facts if you want them.

How about at least 6 people from his campaign either in jail or otherwise pleaded guilty of wrong doing...

Are those the results a staunch member of the Grand Old Party would support?

You ok with that?

I did not, I only said I’m not a moderate.

Why isn't Mexico paying for the wall?

For an independent moderate you sure like to stand on one side.