They honor their oath to be impartial.

During one of the most bitterly divided moments in U.

S history, just the third time ever the Senate has been asked to remove a sitting president from office.

Remember, Donald Trump has already been impeached for abusing the power of his office and obstructing Congress.

But few believe there's any chance of Republican controlled Senate will vote to force him out.

Can we still put fairness?

Even had it US.

And historical precedent ahead of the partisan passion of the day certainly know if the rules that Republicans are hoping to pass today are anything to go by.

Late last night, they released the resolution setting out plans for the trial.

Both sides will be given just 24 hours over two days to make their case, ensuring key arguments could be buried late at night.

Then senators get 60 now is only to question, but those questions must be in writing.

They're not allowed to speak during the trial, and crucially, they'll be given a vote as to whether or not to allow fresh evidence and witnesses to appear.

It almost seems that the resolution was written in the White House, not in the Senate.

It asked to Senate to sprint through the trial as fast as possible and makes getting evidence as hard as possible as Republican senators were busy trying to cut the trial to a minimum.

So the president's lawyers in the White House urged them to dismiss the trial immediately on Day one, saying the whole process was rigged and not just agreeing with the president's argument but actually repeating it, that he had done nothing wrong and that the whole impeachment process was nothing more then bitter Democrats tryingto undo the results off the last election.

And where was the president of this historic trial began in Davos, of course, at a meeting of the global elite, he's so desperate to keep on side, he trotted out the standard patter.

That whole thing was a hoax goes nowhere because nothing happened.

But the impeachment trial is happening.

Whether he likes it or not, said it will convene as a court of impeachment.

The president's aim now to shut it down as quickly and painlessly as possible.

So ongoing right now in this Senate there is a row about the rules of the trial.

If they manage to agree that, then we will move to opening arguments will hear first from the impeachment managers from the Democratsside who will lay out the arguments against the president.

Then we will move toe White House lawyers who will seek to defend Donald Trump.

And that will be the really interesting moment, because thus far the real only defense that we've heard has been to criticize the process.

It's all rigged into hoax.

We've heard that time and time again.

But this is the show.

Me.

Don't tell me moment.

What is their line by line defense To all the evidence we've heard against Donald Trump, other than to simply state that he has done nothing wrong after that, the next big blow up will be the issue as to whether or not we hear from witnesses were told.

That will require yet another vote in this senators in the Senate.

Rather, if that vote passes and it's a big if, then the witnesses will first be deposed behind closed doors.

If the vote does not pass, then we could see this trial be wrapped up by the end of next week.

Which is, of course, exactly what Donald Trump wants.

Thanks shiv on.

Well, joining me now via the Internet is Alan Dershowitz, the famed defense attorney on author of the book The Case Against Impeaching Trump.

Released in 2018.

He'll be speaking in President Trump's defense on the Senate floor.

Mr Dirt Dust Rabbits if you could just set out first.

Why, in your view, there are no grounds for impeaching Donald Trump because the Constitution sets out the only grounds for impeachment as treason.

Nobody has accused him of treason.

Bribery?

That's not one of the charges or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

And the high crimes and misdemeanors have to be akin to treason and bribery on.

None of the framers would have dreamed of allowing abuse of authority or abuse of power to be a criteria because they were very worried about vague criteria that could be weaponized by political opponents.

About half of the American presidents over time have been accused of abusing their power one way or another, so I think neither of the charges that are the basis for the impeachment satisfy the constitutional criteria he's accused of pressuring, the Ukrainian president did dig up dirt on his political rival.

Don't you think the public would expect that to be punished?

Well, there are a lot of ways of punishing that you don't vote from the next time the Elect comes around or you could have ah, venture of him.

But just because the American public wants and pub punished doesn't mean that it's an impeachable effects.

Impeachment is very, very rigidly restricted in the Constitution of the United States rejected broader British terms.

For example, Mala Administracion was turned that's used in Britain to impeach.

But, uh, that was objected to by the framers and explicitly turned down on the ground for impeachment.

They would have done the same thing with abusive power or with obstruction of Congress.

Though the question is not what we think.

That's what the framers of the Constitution thought.

Well, isn't the Constitution quite general on this point of high crimes and misdemeanors, though I mean, just give us an example in your view of something that would a specific example of something that would constitute that very easy.

What they charged Richard Nixon with Hay was charged with paying hush money to potential witnesses.

He was charged with the racing tapes he was charged with telling his administrators.

That's his assistance.

Delighted the FBI, those roll impeachable offenses.

Those are all high crimes.

On the other hand, President Clinton was charged with a crime perjury, but it was a low crime, not a hard for a high crime.

So I think he was improperly impeached.

But Nixon was properly subject to impeachment.

He knew it, and that's why he resigned.

What do you think that if the Democrats had framed the argument in a different way, they might have succeeded in impeaching?

Well, they didn't have the evidence to come up with bribery or treason or any other high crimes.

If they did believe me, they would have impeached on those grounds because they didn't have the hard evidence to come up with impeachable grounds.

They came up with these vague, open and the general ground.

So no, I don't think they would have been able to come up with an impeachable offense.

I don't think the president has committed in the past.

Well, we don't have to reach that because the issue is whether he's charged with unimpeachable give you an example.

Let's assume the person is charged with a crime of dishonesty, and then they have a whole list of things that show have dishonesty was immediately you'd move to dismiss The indictment is, dishonesty is not a time stick, but it's not a crime the same thing here.

They're just not impeachable offenses.

So we don't reach the issue of what the underlying allegation.

Do you think the public would agree with that assessment?

When you say there that you know dishonesty isn't a crime, do you think they would expect the president to be held to a higher standard on that?

Well, nothing could be less relevant and what the public would think about what should be an impeachable offense.

What's relevant is what the framers and those who wrote the Constitution.

I think a lot of people would hate trump with any thickness and people events and a lot of people who hated Barack Obama with that, anything he did would be in a beautiful offense.

Do is guard with our by Congress, and there were hearings about the abuses of power in the Obama administration, but they did not rise to the level of impeachable offenses.

What happens now?

Because if Donald Trump, he said repeatedly, This is a witch hunt.

If he believes that, should he?

Do you think appear as a witness to try and scotch those claims?

Well, I've been practicing criminal law for almost 55 years.

I don't think I've ever had a defendant appears.

Witness.

That's just not what you do.

When the burden of proof is on the other side, you allow the other side.

Then it's challenge it.

But it's very rare for birth.

Use their defendant to testify in this case, Alan Dershowitz.

Thank you very much for joining us.

Well, that is it for now.

From doubles back tomorrow.

But over now to John in London.

Thank you, Candy.

Well, now, to get a sense of what Democrats make of the opening moves in President Trump's impeachment trial, I mean, speaking to Sheila Jackson Lee, Democrat Congress woman for Texas, I put it to her.

The professor Dershowitz says it's not an impeachment case in the first place.

Oh, let me, Ah, let me disabuse you and completely completely reject that interpretation.

I worked extensively.

Ah, as a member of the Judiciary Committee on the question of abuse, uh, for commentary purposes, Alexander Hamilton said that impeachment is the process for the public man who has violated the public trust.

There is no doubt that the constitution, in its language of high crimes and misdemeanors at the time it was written, included the abuse of power.

There's something called constitutional crimes.

Why?

Because the Constitution is the law of the land, you can violate it and you will have perpetrated Ah, constitutional crime such as the abuse of your authority, the president by illegally jeopardizing our national security by undermining the, uh, acts of the Congress legally, as indicated by the General Accounting Office that the president violated the law broke the law by asking a foreign entity to intrude and involve itself and 2020 elections.

As unfortunately happened 2016 and then the constant pattern off obstructing the investigation by blocking any of his members or all of his members who didn't come voluntarily of his Cabinet and his own be directors acting on B director, former ambassador, our constitutional violations and they are impeachable.

Theis, you showed in out is that the Republicans are gonna try and ramrod this thing through at the speed of light and try to prevent you putting any of the points you put to us.

Well, I would say to you, it's gonna be the American people who overwhelmingly desire a fair and impartial trial.

And over 53% or 53% believe the President should be convicted on removed.

We're going to do our job.

We're gonna present the evidence we're gonna continue to educate.

The American people were gonna ask them.

Should this be the new norm when the president seeks tohave the elections, the very sacred elections presidential elections interfered with by asking a foreign entity to investigate and to announce an investigation of a potential opponent.

Congresswoman Jackson Lee.

Thank you very much indeed for talking with us.

Thank you.

Thank you.