And the way they see it has much to do with their political team. The House managers nodded to this during their opening arguments last week when they played a 1999 video clip of Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, and one of the president’s chief defenders, sharing his view of impeachable offenses during the Clinton impeachment trial:

“What’s a high crime? How about if an important person hurts somebody of low means. It’s not very scholarly, but I think it’s the truth,” Mr. Graham says in the clip. “I think that’s what they meant by ‘high crimes.’ Doesn’t have to be a crime. It’s just when you start using your office and you’re acting in a way that hurts people, you’ve committed a high crime.”

Needless to say, Mr. Graham no longer believes what he said — although, to be fair it’s hard to know for certain what he believes. In the early stages of the Trump impeachment investigation, he said that evidence of a quid pro quo would be cause for concern. As that evidence has emerged, he has changed his tune.

Republican Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and John Kennedy of Louisiana have both suggested that proving a quid pro quo is not enough, and that the real test should be whether the president’s intentions were corrupt. They obviously do not agree that the House managers have made this case.

What’s obstruction, anyway?

Gail Mangham, Prescott, Ariz.: I’m trying to square my view — that the refusal of the Republicans to allow witnesses is a form of obstruction of justice — with the Republican view that Trump’s decision to disallow witnesses, like John Bolton and others, is not obstruction of justice. Need some help on this point.

MC: You and me both. The defense’s claim is all about process. They insist the House did such an unfair, slapdash job with its inquiry that the entire impeachment, including many of the subpoenas it issued, were illegitimate and, as such, the president would have been irresponsible to participate. Furthermore, they argue, if the Senate now validates the House’s shoddy work, it will set a terrible precedent, making it too easy for the House to impeach future presidents.