"The fact that some of us believe that the threshold has been passed to warrant an
impeachment inquiry does not mean that we would support an actual impeachment. This
is a moment where members and citizens can stand together on the need to seek answers
without pre-judging what that evidence may show. None of the offenses discussed above
have been established and I hope that the evidence will fall considerably short of that
mark. The impeachment of a president should never be a close question on the merits.
The instant question is whether members will support the full review of the underlying
allegations. The driving purpose of an inquiry should not be impeachment but the
determination if such a radical measure is warranted. In adopting best practices in
impeachment, members can restore this process to protect the “public trust” not only
invested in a President but in Congress by our constitution."
1) I'm impressed you pulled some actual facts. Really. I am.
2) I paraphrased what he said. I boiled it down to a concise statement.
3) lemme quote from the passage you copy/pasted: None of the offenses discussed above
have been established
How do you establish that a crime has happened?
What do you need for that?
There's a specific word.
What's that specific thing you need that has a specific word?