It was an inauspicious start: they felt compelled to concede that their opponents had skewered them.
And that, therefore, they were going to abandon whatever it was that they had said in their pre-trial brief.
And then they started shouting at the top of their lungs; and every other word was "due process".
They also constructed an artifice in which, if it had been anything but an artifice, trying donnie would be implementing a bill of attainder.
Since I have read MacAulay's History of England three or four times I was dazzled by the utterly bogus nature of the artifice.
And they kept shouting: donnie hasn't gotten due process (he has) he hasn't been given a chance to tell his side (he has and has refused to take it) and he is being tried even though as a private citizen he can't be tried by the Senate (historically not true).
And that whole loop, all false, was looped back to be exhibit A in the bill of attainder argument: a rats nest of lies make the big lie - must be or they wouldn't have said it (and they WERE shouting) - true.
All in all it was what one might expect: a closely rolled ball of threads, none of which mean anything on their own, or aren't true in the first place, or are true but irrelevant.
When I was an IBM salesman back in the last century, when we got into a really dicey competitive battle in a marketing situation we frequently employed FUDS - fear, uncertainty and doubts; it sometimes worked ( I always tried to use only true FUDS, by the way).
I guess we will see how an accretion of today's lies, closely rolled balls of fiction, non-sequiturs, quotes from an obscure Congressman and VERY LOUD SHOUTING can carry the day.
Since forty six of the jurors are of dubious human quality I am pretty sure that only 56 senators will vote to convict.
FUDS usually works.