If there were nothing to this, why would Trump stonewall Congress to the extent that he has? That’s not how the innocent act.

When witness after witness tells a version of the same story, providing pieces of a puzzle that fit snugly together, you can reach a conclusion about the whole of it. That’s called logic.

And if the actual case against Trump were weak, why would Republicans keep redirecting attention to Democrats’ motivations — to how much they despise the president? That’s called distraction.

McSally practiced it on Thursday when, in a moment of breathtaking hostility, she answered a reasonable question from Manu Raju of CNN about whether any new evidence should be presented during the Senate trial by snarling, “Liberal hack!”

She’s terrified. Her state, Arizona, is increasingly purple. She lost her 2018 race for the Senate and ended up in the chamber only by appointment following John McCain’s death. She has to run again this year, against Mark Kelly, the former astronaut, who’s a popular figure. She’s vulnerable, and standing with Trump is almost as much of a gamble as standing up to him would be.

But she once did stand up to him. She used to have guts. Before going into politics, she blazed trails as an Air Force pilot and even sued the secretary of defense when she detected discrimination against women. During her successful campaign for the House in 2016, she pointedly didn’t endorse Trump and just as pointedly spoke out against the behavior that he copped to — no, bragged about — in that infamous “Access Hollywood” tape. McSally had a moral compass then.

Now she just has a hunger to hold onto her suite of offices in the Capitol. She has wagered that emulating Trump is her best bet. At the conclusion of this pathetic excuse for a trial, she’ll vote to acquit him — impartially, of course.