A regular reader and occasional commenter who uses the name “Bill” submitted a comment in response to my post on Friday, “Welcome to my blog, iLind.net.”

I was reluctant to approve it, as it was exactly the kind of comment that runs directly counter to the approach I’ve been trying to encourage and support. But Bill didn’t get personal, was polite, and presented his viewpoint. So I decided to approve the comment and in fact elevate it to a post, with my own reply.

Here’s what Bill had to say:

Impeachment and Senate removal are highly subjective political animals. They do not present the opportunity for an independent court review as to whether you met an evidentiary threshold or reached a proper legal conclusion. This leads to the situation in this case where Democrats will always be convinced that Trump committed impeachable offenses. And the Senate will throw out the charges. And the GOP will always be convinced that the Democrats got it wrong. I am not sure either side is capable of unbiased analysis of the position of the other side. This is why we see no movement in poll numbers from this event. And for me, there is no sense in trying to argue the facts or the law. This is pure politics in my mind.

I’ll try to walk through the main points in his comment.

Bills says: “Impeachment and Senate removal are highly subjective political animals.

Sure. This is all about politics. But not only “partisan” politics. And not subjective, except in the philosophical view that everything perceived by humans is ultimately subjective. That’s a great start to a philosophical discussion. But it’s not the way we live our lives. You might dismiss that closed door as subjective, but you’ll soon learn that walking into a closed door has unfortunate consequences in our everyday world. In practice, we necessarily transcend the subjective.

And of course it’s political. I liked the definition of “politics” that was in vogue when I was in graduate school. Politics, according to a classic work by American scholar Harold D. Lasswell, is the process that defines who gets what, when, and how. Politics is simply the way we make public decisions.

Bill says: “They do not present the opportunity for an independent court review as to whether you met an evidentiary threshold or reached a proper legal conclusion.”

That’s not really true. In this case, the formal role of the court is played by the U.S. Senate. But there’s another more larger and more important court, the court of public opinion. Us. The American people and, to some extent, the citizens of the world who are watching this process as it unfolds. And in the court of public opinion, we need to be examining and evaluating the evidence that has been gathered and presented to us. How else can we reach a decision about whether “an evidentiary threshold” has been crossed without examining the evidence and apply basic common-sense standards.

Bill looks at the current degree of polarization and expresses hopelessness about anything being done. “This leads to the situation in this case where Democrats will always be convinced that Trump committed impeachable offenses. And the Senate will throw out the charges. And the GOP will always be convinced that the Democrats got it wrong.”

There are differences, of course, between the positions staked out by Democrats and Republicans in the impeachment process so far. Democrats have gathered evidence. They have taken sworn testimony given by witnesses under oath. They have sought the primary documents. They’ve issued subpoenas, where necessary. They have done what one would expect to be done to dig beyond the “he said-she said” to underlying evidence.

And in the process, the evidence they have gathered appears pretty damning. But a major problem is that if we–members of the court of public opinion–cover our eyes and stick our fingers in our ears and refuse to look or listen, then of course the process breaks down.

President Trump has refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas, something that neither Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton ultimately resorted to when facing the same impeachment process. The President has directed current and former staff members, especially with direct knowledge of his actions, to also refuse to comply.

Bill says: “And for me, there is no sense in trying to argue the facts or the law. This is pure politics in my mind.”

I don’t get the sense that Bill is happy about the situation. Rather, in his comment, he seems resigned.

In my mind, we have a certain responsibility to at least look at the evidence. That’s why I spent time making the sworn testimony and committee reports readily available. Once we’ve taken a look, it’s time to evaluate the evidence. Take a fact or two from the sworn testimony, or the conclusions spelled out in detail in the report of the House Intelligence Committee, and see where we might find agreement.

On way is to begin with the hypothetical. If President Trump did what is alleged, would it constitute an impeachable offense? And that’s what happened in the impeachment hearing held by the House Judiciary Committee, where constitutional law scholars put forward by Democrats and Republicans gave their opinions on this matter of law.

And they agreed on the central legal question. The witness selected by the Republican minority was Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University law school.

According to an account published by the Atlantic Magazine: “…as he delivered his opening oral remarks, he cut to the heart of the matter: “The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.””

That’s a beginning, isn’t it?

If we agree on the law, then we can turn to evaluating evidence. When there are issues of fact, of deciding what happened, those are questions left to the jury. In our case, first the jury of public opinion, then senators sitting in the role of jurors.

In any case, I appreciate Bill’s attempt to put his viewpoint forward.

Perhaps we don’t necessarily have to talk past one another.