I’m not sure how this got off into the merits of the numerous cases against Trump, because the article you are responding to is not about the merits. It’s about procedure and how the terms of discourse have changed as the Republicans search for a defense.

Pelosi got booted into an impeachment fight she was trying to avoid by the Ukraine shakedown.

You say there’s no case against Trump?

It’s not true that impeachment requires a crime, but it’s a felony to solicit a thing of value for a U.S. political campaign from a foreign source.

This was the point of Trump’s mantra from 2016, “No collusion.” He said that because he could not deny it happened, so he had to throw his campaign under the bus by saying he didn’t know anything about it.

I don’t think that would wash in an impeachment trial because Trump could not make that point without testifying and if he testified, he would be a goner. But he skated because Pelosi does not want to impeach. That, you see, would be bad for the Democrats.

Then along comes the Ukraine affair and Mr. Trump didn’t just do it — he bragged about it and said he’d do it again. All he said to the merits was “no quid pro quo.” The statute he violated does not require a quid pro quo (leaving aside there is plenty of evidence of quid pro quo anyway).

That means the only way you — and I’m talking to you personally — can say what you are saying is if you think that felony about soliciting a thing of value from a foreign country is void because making that solicitation is a constitutional right protected by the First Amendment.

There is enough case law on solicitation that you’ll find the First Amendment dog won’t hunt, and that’s why you don’t hear it from the congressional chorus. If you disagree, please cite cases.

All that is left is to ignore the facts and attack the procedure. If you say that’s wrong, please quote a congressional defense that engages on the facts rather than the procedure.

While I admit to being elected as a Democrat, I am no longer a Democrat. I have been an Independent for over ten years. When Pelosi would not support impeachment out of fear for her majority, she reminded me of all the reasons I quit the Democrats. I held this opinion before the Ukraine affair became public.

Pelosi’s position was vintage party over country, as is just about every word we have heard from the Republicans since the Ukraine affair became public and Trump rendered arguing the facts impossible.

So I have not been publishing about the facts. If you think there are facts that exonerate Trump, you need to publish them. Congress has not picked up on them and you could be a hero. If I disagree, I’ll probably post a dissent under your article.

In the meantime, I’m writing about procedure and you have posted a comment that has little to do with what I wrote. This article is about what the GOP is doing to the exclusionary rule — a result with which I agree but they don’t intend. I have another one where I talk about what they are doing to the hearsay rule, a result with which I do not agree.

I’d have to go back and look because of the amount I publish, but I’m pretty sure that, when I write about the facts, I confine myself to facts Trump has admitted or facts that have been shown with such clarity there’s no reasonable argument that they are incorrect.

If I have trespassed on facts with which you disagree, please comment under the article where I did that.