-Once you hear those initial presentations,
the only conclusion will be that the president
has done absolutely nothing wrong.
-What this trial has shown thus far
is that the architect of this defense is Donald J.
Trump.
Specifically, he wants to take the view
that this was all perfect.
-The level of unfairness for a perfect conversation
with the president of Ukraine.
This was a perfect conversation.
Both perfect clause.
In fact, probably among the nicest clause
I've ever made to foreign leaders.
You know, I had a first call, which was perfect,
and I had a second call which was perfect.
-My name is Jonathan Turley.
I'm a law professor at George Washington University.
I testified at both the Clinton and Trump
impeachment hearings as a Constitutional expert.
-I'm concerned about lowering impeachment standards
to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger.
The irony is that in my House testimony,
I was critical of the House leadership
that they were adapting too broad
a definition of impeachable conduct.
Ironically, I think now the White House
is trying to adopt to narrow of a standard.
The President's defense is largely structured
around the argument
that a president simply can not be impeached
unless you allege a crime.
This argument is being put forward
by Professor Alan Dershowitz.
-You needed proof of an actual crime.
It needed be a statutory crime,
but it has to be criminal behavior.
What is very clear is that obstruction
of justice, obstruction --
I'm sorry -- obstruction of Congress or abuse of power
aren't even close to what the framers had in mind.
-It would create a dangerous precedent for the criminal code
to be the full scope of impeachable offenses.
The problem is that a president can many things
that are not indictable but could still be impeachable.
A president could put lives at risk,
even cost lives for personal or petty reasons.
To suggest that as long as you stay shy of the criminal code
you cannot be impeached would be a dangerous proposition.
Logically, you do not want the criminal code
to be synonymous with impeachable conduct.
If the framers wanted to do that,
they could have easily done it.
They would have simply said you have to commit a federal crime.
They didn't because they clearly didn't want to.
They wanted it to include violations of public trust.
What is clear is that this is the first impeachment
where a president is facing only non-criminal allegations.
Now, that doesn't mean that it is invalid.
It just means it's tougher.
Where some of us view this trial as a teachable moment,
I believe the President views it as a television moment.
-Also tonight the Democrats, they're heinous,
they're unconstitutional
and outright frankly dangerous impeachment fantasy
is getting ripped to shreds.
-And he may know the audience quite well.
He wants a single, coherent narrative, no nuances.
He wants the impeachment to be the equivalent
of a Constitutional drive-by shooting.
By taking this position,
the president puts particularly moderate Republicans
in a tough position.
Many of them are not going to want to sign off
on Dershowitz argument.
They are not going to want to confine impeachment
for future presidents to criminal code.
They will have to thread that needle in the end
when they cast their vote,
so you may find some senators ruling for the president
while rejecting the basis of his argument.