President Trump’s lawyers on Tuesday concluded their opening arguments in the…

The defenses final day of arguments mirrored its first in many ways. The presidents lawyers took only about two hours and presented a broad repudiation of House Democrats. They painted Trump as a victim of a partisan attempt to undo the 2016 election result and insisted that even if the president had acted inappropriately, it did not warrant his removal from office.
Overturning the last election and massively interfering with the upcoming one would cause serious and lasting damage to the people of the United States and our great country, White House counsel Pat Cipollone said in his closing remarks. The Senate cannot allow this to happen. It is time for this to end, here and now.
Trumps attorneys also addressed new revelations about former national security adviser John BoltonJohn BoltonWarren: Dershowitz presentation ‘nonsensical,’ ‘could not follow it’Bolton told Barr he was concerned Trump did favors for autocrats: reportDershowitz: Bolton allegations would not constitute impeachable offenseMOREs knowledge of the Ukraine affair that have complicated the defense and threatened to upend the White Houses hopes for a speedy trial without witnesses. 
It is not a game of leaks or unsourced manuscripts, Trumps personal attorney Jay SekulowJay Alan SekulowDershowitz: Bolton allegations would not constitute impeachable offenseOvernight Defense: US military jet crashes in Afghanistan | Rocket attack hits US embassy in Baghdad | Bolton bombshell rocks impeachment trialTrump team doubles down despite Bolton bombshellMORE said on the Senate floor, referencing allegations in Boltons manuscript as reported by the New York Times, arguing that such details should be inadmissible.
Bolton reportedly wrote in his upcoming memoir of an August meeting where Trump said he would not release security aid for Ukraine unless the country assisted with investigations into his political rivals. The manuscript directly contradicts the defense teams insistence that Trump did not explicitly tie the aid to investigations.
Sekulow sought to knock down Boltons credibility as a potential witness, citing Trumps denials of the Bolton claim and a Department of Justice statement disputing certain reported claims in Boltons manuscript.
In what was likely an effort to assuage some Republicans troubled by the Bolton allegations, Sekulow leaned on an argument first levied late Monday by Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan DershowitzAlan Morton DershowitzWarren: Dershowitz presentation ‘nonsensical,’ ‘could not follow it’Dershowitz: Bolton allegations would not constitute impeachable offenseTrump legal team begins second day of arguments under Bolton furorMORE: That even if Trump had acted as his former national security adviser claimed, it would not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
That is clear from the history. That is clear from the language of the Constitution, Dershowitz, an opinion contributor to The Hill, said Monday. “You cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using words like ‘quid pro quo’ and ‘personal benefit.
Trumps lawyers have sought to poke holes in House Democrats case by pointing out the lack of firsthand details about the presidents conduct over the past three days, saying the House impeachment managers failed to collect evidence to prove central allegations and that they deliberately presented an incomplete picture of Trumps conduct towards Ukraine.  
Democrats, however, say the attorneys strengthened their argument for calling Bolton or other witnesses to testify especially in the wake of the report about Boltons account. 
The Presidents lawyer continues to make the case for John Bolton being called as a witness in the Senate trial, said a Democratic official working on the impeachment trial as Sekulow addressed the Bolton issue on the Senate floor. 
Sekulow repeatedly sounded alarm over the articles of impeachment on Tuesday, accusing House Democrats of attempting to remove Trump from office over foreign policy differences and saying they would do lasting damage to the separation of powers, repeatedly warning: Danger, danger, danger. 
The bar for impeachment cannot be set this low, Sekulow said. These articles must be rejected. The Constitution requires it. Justice demands it.
House managers utilized nearly all of the 24 hours allotted to make a detailed case that Trump leveraged the presidency to get a foreign government to investigate his political rivals, and that he obstructed Congress by repeatedly refusing to comply with subpoenas as part of the impeachment inquiry. They warned that failure to remove Trump from office would give him the opportunity to abuse his office heading into the 2020 election.
By comparison, Trumps attorneys used roughly 11 hours of the 24 hours allotted to them over three days to present their case for Trumps acquittal on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, delivering a bulk of that argument on Monday by bringing in Dershowitz, former independent counsel Kenneth Starr and other lawyers to argue against Trumps impeachment. 
Tuesdays closing presentation was geared toward making a final argument against extending the trial with witnesses and additional evidence. It was a departure from Mondays eight-hour session in which all eight members of the presidents team spoke and delivered scathing attacks on the Bidens, pointed defenses of Rudy GiulianiRudy GiulianiTrump lawyers offer defense of Giuliani on the Senate floorGiuliani: Bolton sacrificing his integrity ‘to make a few bucks on a book’The Hill’s Morning Report – Report of Bolton tell-all manuscript roils Trump defenseMORE and somber warnings about the increasing use of impeachment.
This should end now as quickly as possible, Cipollone said in concluding remarks. 
Trumps team will now turn to the next task at hand — answering questions from senators over a 16-hour period before a vote on whether to hear new testimony and evidence in the trial.
Republican senators are meeting Tuesday afternoon to seek consensus on a strategy ahead of the debate over witnesses, which will likely take place Friday. Most of the conference has signaled it prefers to avoid hearing from witnesses and move straight to voting to acquit Trump.
Three Republicans Sens. Susan CollinsSusan Margaret Collins Meadows: Bolton manuscript leaked ‘to manipulate’ senators over witness voteTrump team doubles down despite Bolton bombshellProgressive group targeting vulnerable GOP senators on impeachment witnessesMORE (Maine), Lisa MurkowskiLisa Ann MurkowskiTrump team doubles down despite Bolton bombshellBolton upends Trump impeachment trial Meadows: Republicans who break with Trump could face political repercussionsMORE (Alaska) and Mitt RomneyWillard (Mitt) Mitt Romney Meadows: Bolton manuscript leaked ‘to manipulate’ senators over witness voteRepublicans show little enthusiasm for impeachment witness swapCollins expected to announce Georgia Senate bidMORE (Utah) have consistently indicated they are open to hearing from witnesses. Four Republicans would need to vote with all Democrats and independents to secure a majority vote to subpoena for new evidence and testimony.
But even if that happens, it will likely set off a fresh round of debate on who will be subpoenaed.
I’ll make a prediction, Sen. Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamGraham says he wants to see Bolton manuscriptBolton upends Trump impeachment trial Juan Williams: Democrats can’t let Trump off the hookMORE (R-S.C.) told reporters Tuesday when asked about the prospect of hearing from witnesses. There will be 51 Republican votes to call Hunter Biden, Joe BidenJoe BidenWarren: Dershowitz presentation ‘nonsensical,’ ‘could not follow it’Bolton told Barr he was concerned Trump did favors for autocrats: reportDershowitz: Bolton allegations would not constitute impeachable offenseMORE, the whistleblower and the DNC staffer at a minimum.