The prosecution team of 13 Republican congressmen from the House of Representatives, called managers, had a dual task during their three days of pleadings.
First they had to prove that President Clinton broke the law by perjuring himself and by obstructing justice as set out in the two articles of impeachment voted by the House last month.
The second task was to prove that these offences amounted to those "high crimes and misdemeanours" which would require his dismissal from office under the constitution.
Dismissal would require a two-thirds majority of the 100 senators. So, even if the 55 Republicans vote for dismissal, they would need 12 of the 45 Democrats to vote with them to reach the necessary majority.
The senators are not supposed to vote automatically along party lines as they have taken an oath to do "impartial justice" to the President.
The Republican managers used their presentations also to argue that witnesses should be called to resolve conflicts between Grand Jury testimony by the President and others such as Ms Monica Lewinsky. Some of the Republicans suggested that Mr Clinton himself should testify.
Tomorrow the White House legal team will have its three days in court, as it were, to present the President's defence. Like their Republican counterparts, they will have a dual task as well.
First they will argue on the facts that the President did not break the law by committing perjury and obstruction of justice. But even if he did, they will also argue, these offences do not rise to the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanours" necessitating his removal from office.
This last is known as the "so what?" argument. In other words, even if the senators sitting as judge and jury end up believing President Clinton committed perjury or obstruction of justice or both, these offences are not serious enough to warrant dismissal from office.
President Clinton's fate depends on who wins this argument. The Republican prosecutors made a very strong case that the President committed perjury, and this was conceded by some Democrats who have warned the White House defence team they must put up a strong rebuttal.
Democratic Senator John Graham of Florida said that the White House must produce "a point-by-point rebuttal of the facts and then make a presentation on the basis of the constitutional standards". There were various prongs to the Republican case that perjury and obstruction of justice are serious enough to require Mr Clinton's dismissal.
They listed the number of federal judges who have been impeached and dismissed from office by the Senate for perjury. They pointed out that perjury is punished more severely than bribery in the criminal code and that the constitution lists bribery along with treason as offences calling for dismissal of presidents and other high officials from office.
At least 115 persons are serving sentences for perjury in federal prisons, Representative Steve Buyer of Indiana pointed out in his presentation. "Where is the fairness to these Americans, if they stay in jail and the President stays in the Oval Office?", he asked.
Mr Buyer also brought up an interesting argument based on President Clinton's role as Commander-in-Chief.
Mr Buyer argued that Mr Clinton's "diminished veracity" had had an "inherently corrosive" effect on his capacity to function effectively as Commander-in-Chief and to carry out his foreign policy duties.
In addition, if members of the armed forces were accused of the same offences as Mr Clinton, "they would no longer be deserving of the privilege of serving in the military", Mr Buyer pointed out. This was a reference to the severe penalties in the military for adultery.
In his summing-up address, Mr Henry Hyde, the leader of the Republican prosecutors, tried to touch most of the truths and symbols that most Americans hold sacred as he argued that no US president can be above the law.
The political argument against removing a twice-elected, popular President remains strong. Republicans as well as Democrats are only too well aware of that.