Imagine, if you will, that you’re unlucky enough to be President Donald Trump’s lawyer. Sometime in the next few months, you’ll have to stand in front of the U.S. Senate—not just the chamber itself, but all one hundred senators, patiently sitting at their desks—and give a closing statement in your client’s impeachment trial. Chief Justice John Roberts is sitting behind you, presiding over the process. And C-SPAN’s cameras are pointed down at you from the gallery, broadcasting your remarks to Americans and the world.

How would you defend the president? What would you tell senators to convince them not to convict Trump on the House’s articles of impeachment? I’ve spent the past few weeks tracing the evolving, bumbling, and bewildering defenses put forth by the president’s staunchest supporters. With the release of the House deposition transcripts from key witnesses this week, those defenses look more threadbare than ever. So I’ve wondered: What exactly will Trump’s lawyers tell the Senate when the trial takes place?

This defense will depend on the exact nature of the articles of impeachment brought against him. What those articles would actually look like is unclear. The House is reportedly adopting a narrow approach that only focuses on the Ukraine scandal and its aftermath, excluding the Mueller report’s findings or other scandals. It’s possible that he could face charges for obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress. But for this article I’ll assume he faces at least one article on abuse of power, similar to the second article adopted by the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 against Richard Nixon.

Would you claim that Trump is actually innocent—that is, that the charge is wholly without merit? After all, Ronald Reagan survived the Iran-Contra affair by claiming ignorance of the scandal’s worst aspects. Unfortunately for Trump, the evidence places him at the heart of the scheme. This includes the White House’s own summary of the July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, where Trump asked him for a “favor” and urged him to investigate the Bidens. Additionally, Trump cannot claim that Rudy Giuliani was acting without his knowledge, as Zelenskiy specifically mentioned Trump’s aide-de-camp by name during the call.

Since Trump’s role is indisputable, would you try to persuade the Senate that the request was made, but there was no quid pro quo attached to it? New York Representative Lee Zeldin, one of the president’s top allies in the House, took that approach after the Volker and Sondland transcripts became public on Tuesday. “Fun facts Dems/media love omitting from their fairy tale 3rd, 4th, 5th & NO hand stories,” he wrote on Twitter on Tuesday after the Sondland and Volker transcripts became public. “1. Ukraine didn’t know there was a hold on aid until end of Aug. 2. The hold on aid was released soon after that. 3. Guess what Ukraine had to do to get the hold on aid lifted? NOTHING!”