Fair enough, but history has certainly shown us that being stupid or acting so is not an impeachable offense on its own.
The call itself? The call itself is not illegal. And good luck with prosecuting Flynn on the Logan Act for discussing sanctions. Although I suppose it could be part of what Flynn is worried about. Plus maybe his Turkey deal.(more likely) Probable that Flynn was axed because they couldn't let him undermine Pence. Or they just didn't trust him or believe his explanation for his failure to state he discussed sanctions with the Russians. Yates warned Pence that Flynn was on tape discussing sanctions when Pence categorically denied he did. Yates has said she felt this could open Flynn up to blackmail, because obviously the Russkis record their own conversations as well.
But again, everyone with knowledge of the content of Flynn's conversations has said there is nothing there. What you want is evidence of some Trumper's collusion, not a conversation about their jobs. Logically that would start by at least last summer. Every Russian of note is monitored, and yet we have nothing of substance to go on yet. That doesn't look good to me.
The only real opinion I have held on Hils emails is that one year before the election I said it was never going away. It was much to easy to exploit politically.
With Watergate you had the break-in which was the crime. The actual burglars plus Liddy and Hunt who directed them, were all indicted in less than 90 days. Liddy was general counsel on Nixon's campaign committee and less than a week after the break-in, Mark Feltz (Deep Throat) had already told Woodward and Bernstein not only that Hunt was involved, but that Hunt was directly connected to WH counsel Colsten. The only question then was how far up it went in the WH, not IF it was connected to the WH. Feltz gave several reports to W&B, the last was only 6 months after the break in. True, it did take another year and a half to finish it and connect it all to Nixon himself, but it was all there early on.
Here you have yet to even find evidence of a crime as much as 9 months after it allegedly began. The crime isn't the Russian hacking. That on it's own is irrelevant as far as Trump goes. The crime would be collusion of some sort. I'm not even entirely sure what it would be. It seems the only logical thing would be the Russians actually telling Trump they could help him in exchange for some quid pro quo. That is what I'm looking for.