"Of all the things Trump’s done, why pick on the Zelensky call? It’s as if Trump’s sins had been inscribed on ping pong balls and placed in a big tumbler..."

"... like the kind used to pick lottery numbers. 'And the winner is, "Zelensky phone call on July 25."'OK! Democrats and the press then all agree to get very worked up over the 'systematic attack on American democracy.' I still don’t believe what Trump did is a 'high crime' — that’s my story, and I’m sticking to it. I can think of 10 things he’s done that are worse, including firing Comey. And hiring Priebus. (And, yes, putting the children of families separated at the border into foster care—that was too harsh.) None of these justify removing Trump under the Constitution, or else every president in my lifetime would have been the subject of ongoing impeachment proceedings—which may be where we’re headed. Always Be Impeaching."

So begins Mickey Kaus in "Best Thing I've Read on Impeachment/It's way more complicated than the huffed-up MSM would have it." Much more at the link. I especially like the last 2 sentences (which are based on the observation that the Zelensky phone call issue turns on Trump's intent

Evolution has built our brains to conflate self-interest and justice. A good con man believes his own con. If “intent” is what counts, that might make Trump unimpeachable.

That "best thing" he's read is "Is It Ever OK for a President to Ask a Foreign Country to Investigate a Political Rival?/Sometimes, yes—which is why Donald Trump’s potential impeachment hinges on his motive in doing so" by lawprof Edward B. Foley (Politico). Excerpt:

Going back to America’s early days, there have been occasional instances in which presidents would have been justified had they sought foreign investigations into political rivals. In 1804, Aaron Burr contacted the British government, apparently to peddle a plan for severing part of the United States to form a new country in western territory. In response, President Thomas Jefferson had Burr prosecuted for treason, and he was found not guilty. We can stipulate that Jefferson was excessively involved in the treason trial. But had he instead simply asked for Britain’s assistance in gathering more information about Burr’s involvement in this plot, that would have been entirely appropriate given the high stakes for the country.

This is true despite the fact Jefferson was seeking reelection at the time and Burr, an incorrigibly ambitious politician, might still have coveted the presidency. It was unlikely that Burr would have been a serious rival to Jefferson’s reelection; the Federalist Party, which opposed Jefferson, hated Burr for having slayed its hero, Alexander Hamilton. But Burr was still active politically and could not be discounted completely. Whatever the circumstances of the electoral rivalries at that moment—and campaigns back then were, of course, very different from today—Jefferson as president would have been acting responsibly if he had requested Britain’s assistance in the investigation of Burr.