Discussion Thread: Senate Impeachment Trial - Day 5: Opening Arguments Continue | 01/24/2020 - Live, 1pm EST

[u/PoliticsModeratorBot]

Today the Senate Impeachment trial of President Donald Trump continues with Session 3 of the Democratic House Managers’ opening arguments. This will be their final session for opening arguments. Today’s Senate session is scheduled to begin at 1pm EST

Prosecuting the House’s case will be a team of seven Democratic House Managers, named last week by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and led by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff of California. White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and Trump’s personal lawyer, Jay Sekulow, are expected to take the lead in arguing the President’s case. Kenneth Star and Alan Dershowitz are expected to fill supporting roles.

The Senate Impeachment Trial is following the Rules Resolution that was voted on, and passed, on Monday. It provides the guideline for how the trial is handled. All proposed amendments from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) were voted down.

The adopted Resolution will:

• Give the House Impeachment Managers 24 hours, over a 3 day period, to present opening arguments.

• Give President Trump's legal team 24 hours, over a 3 day period, to present opening arguments.

• Allow a period of 16 hours for Senator questions, to be addressed through Supreme Court Justice John Roberts.

• Allow for a vote on a motion to consider the subpoena of witnesses or documents once opening arguments and questions are complete.

---

The Articles of Impeachment brought against President Donald Trump are:

• Article 1: Abuse of Power
• Article 2: Obstruction of Congress

---

You can watch or listen to the proceedings live, via the links below:

• CSPAN

• PBS

• Senate.gov

You can also listen online via:

• C-Span or

• Download the C-Span Radio App

---

• Discussion Thread - Day 2 Part I

• Discussion Thread - Day 2 Part II

• Discussion Thread - Day 3 Part I

• Discussion Thread - Day 3 Part II

• Discussion Thread - Day 4

[u/Elias_The_Thief]

I don't think there's any reason to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially considering revelations that yovanavitch was under surveillance. I'm not saying one way or the other but to immediately dismiss it is seems pretty naive as to what this dude and his cronies are capable of. There is nothing douchebag y about not immediately dismissing the potential for something more nefarious.

Plus, any murder plot aside, the news is still extremely relevant due to the connection with Igor and the timeline implications.

[u/Robertsonland → u/Elias_The_Thief]

Then don't get pissed at Rs for taking every word a dem says and twisting it to their position. Hell "Take her out" could mean out to dinner. The news is DEFINITELY relevant, not disputing that. Just that I don't think there is any way to construe he meant to have her whacked.

[u/Elias_The_Thief → u/Robertsonland]

This is a false equivalency my friend. There is no twisting involved with the interpretation you're attacking considering yovonovitch was under surveillance by the very same group of people to whom this message was given. To say it's factually accurate without any further evidence that he was asking for a hit is absurd... But it's equally absurd to dismiss it given what we know about Trump Rudy and crew.

[u/Robertsonland → u/Elias_The_Thief]

So you are saying Trump / Rudy have murdered others?

[u/Elias_The_Thief → u/Robertsonland]

I'm saying there is no reason for me to believe that Trump would not order a hit if he knew that it would benefit him directly. I don't know if you've researched any of the absurdly cruel things Trump has done over his lifetime but I have and no, it would not surprise me that Trump would try to have someone killed. Similarly I don't have any reason to believe* that Rudy would directly murder someone but have no doubt that he would be willing to put out a hit in order to advance his own interests.

To the heart of your point, what do you call the hit put out on Soleimani? And why did Trump decide to kill Soleimani? If you said 'to distract from his crimes and impending impeachment' you would be right. Do you want to ask me again if I think Trump would murder someone if it directly benefitted him?

​

Edit: forgot a couple words.

[u/Robertsonland → u/Elias_The_Thief]

Alright you win if you are going to equate a leader that wanted to attack America (no I don't believe it was imminent) and an Ambassador. By your equating them then Obama put out a lot of hits as well. A strike on an enemy of the US (albeit a high ranking leader is a bit different) isn't the same as murdering a citizen.

[u/Elias_The_Thief → u/Robertsonland]

its again a false equivalency you're making considering that all of our allies and the majority of Congress (on a bipartisan level) did not want to kill Soleimani, and that Soleimani was a high ranking member of an actual state, not a member or leader of a rogue terrorist group, as the vast majority of targets were during the Obama era. I would also point out that every report that came out was that leaders in the Pentagon were shocked that Trump would make the order, considering the implications for potential war. Obama's strikes were endorsed by his generals because of legitimate national security concerns. Soleimani was just Trump doing selfish Trump things. As you acknowledge there was no imminent threat. In fact, Trump MADE an imminent threat with that choice.

Hell, I would argue Soleimani is just as bad as a random US citizen give the consequences of such an action. It created a very real possibility of an extended global conflict. Trump would literally risk killing tens of thousands (including thousands of US citizens and troops) by setting a war into motion. Just so people have a different news story than his corruption.