100 thoughts on “Impeachment Trial Day 5: Trump’s lawyers to give opening arguments

  1. Can you believe this imaginary rift on what the President said???? You can tell that Burbank has some real intense actors including their Democrap representative. Shiff is out of his gourd.

  2. Why didn't the US PAY directly Biden, Clinton, Kerry, Pelosi, Romney DIRECTLY & forget UK, but that wouldn't be money LAUNDERING would it?

    I

  3. 2:31:37 Who is that woman who keeps cueing Chuck Schumer on how to answer the question?
    She repeats "it's not a transcript" twice, and Schumer parrots her.

  4. Ukraine celebrates its Independence Day on August 24!!!!!!!!!! NEVER in September !!!NEVER!!! Distinguished layers—LOL Your presentation is all cover up!!!! It is a shame!!!!!

  5. You see why I don’t want to watch the Main Stream media. They are putting a spin and lying. If you did not listen to the lawyers of President Trump you will believe what that woman just said.
    You liars and perverts.

  6. The audio doesn't line up with the video for me. Tried refreshing many times. This is not happening with other networks. Another way to discourage people from listening. Now watching on FOX.

  7. facts alot of organizations thay fund these senators campaigns bills blah blah blah are in really good with our president their loyalty is to money they will defend him till they take last breathe for the same greed smh – or maybe not ? #beyonceforpresidentrhiannaforvice

  8. Every day more corrupt matters surface but none of what Trump has done and continue to do is wrong in the Republicans eyes

  9. Republican Russians ? No witnesses , no proof , and no guilt , this is total obstruction on its own . G.O.P is killing democracy . In protest we should vote straight DEMOCRAT ……

  10. WOW THE PRESIDENT MANAGER'S BLEW THE SCHIFF SHOW OUT OF THE WATER. FACTS AND LOGIC V ASSUMPTION , LIES PRESUMPTION. SLAM DUNK!

  11. I feel the house can't stand the truth why hide everything we the people want truth not lies Trey gowdy should be in on all this

  12. 1:39:30.. what changed? What changed was that the call summary was released and witnesses with more direct knowledge started to come forward, Their testimony not only corroborated the whistleblower report, but went beyond. At that point it wasn't necessary to expose the whistleblower.

    No one is arguing the contents of the "perfect" phone call. It's about everything leading up to that call. The texts, the setup, then the holding of aid and the fustercluck created in OMB, foreign services and reportedly among the State Dept and White House officials who to this day have been blocked from testifying.

  13. The rest of the transcript sounds just as bad. It only reinforces his implication that Ukraine "owes" him this "favor" because "the US has done alot for Ukraine, more than European countries", etc. What other purpose could he have for saying this to Zelenski? Zelenski didn't announce the investigation because he said he didn't want to be used as a pawn in Trump's re-election campaign. If he did not feel pressured he would have done it!

    This guy is splitting hairs. It doesn't matter whether the paused security assistance were Javelins or something else. It was paused until Zelenski agreed to do the investigation. Why was ANY assistance paused? They have no answer for that!

  14. An agreed upon HOAX to facilitate the average AMERICAN'S ongoing ignorance of the Climate Crisis and the FACT that we shall soon lose our Planet to the Madness Of Greed. What's next?

  15. These lawyers were sharp, prepared, well spoken, straight to the facts and swift. Took two hours.

    24 hours for the dems, people were falling asleep…very pathetic.

  16. How can they repeat anything Trump say, they know he is liar and conman, with liars that follows behind him. I’ve be A-shame to
    defending this liar. I wouldn’t place my Library Card up for this liar.

  17. Does anybody on this panel actually listen to the words spoken, I think you`re all in for a big disappointment …… opinion from an independent

  18. I like that CBSN tries to appear fair, but your bias does reflect when it comes to whom you seek comment from after

  19. CBS is really objective…….am done with cnn and msnbc
    It’s disappointing Rep Schiff did not address Philbin’s point on the invalidity of the committee’s subpoena 😞

  20. CBS , NBC, CNN, MSNBC, ABC commentators still think that the American people are stupid to believe them after 3 years of lie from Russian collusion to now when they heard the truth.

  21. Hey buddy with chuckle Schumer,, the president doesn’t need to prove his innocence to you or anyone.. He also can’t be compelled to assist you in your whacking off you call investigation.

  22. They didnt get permission from the redumblicans to use evidence n thats their defense no evidence. Because you didnt allow it ya Dummys!!! Coverup scandal!! Wait till it comes around for impeachment 2. This time with all the evidence they need to impeach the Orange rascist liar who has the button to our nukes.

  23. LOL Trump's lawyer lies to you while saying the House lied and some of you fell for it. I just research one arbitrary claim from Trump's counsel Michael Purpura and it's a lie (twisted half truth). At 36:40 where he talks about Laura Cooper's testimony. On your computer open up Cooper's Congressional House testimony on Youtube and compare it to what he says. Lies right off the bat and that's real pathetic. Will you be able to spot the lie? Will you take the time to compare her testimony to what this lying lawyer is saying that she said?

  24. Aquital is not enough.
    'Tis said that the framers began by framing Congress because they perceived that BoG to be most-at-risk towards abuse-of-power (+ they trusted G.Washington).
    Setting the goal to impeach THEN conniving the means of doing do is–@minimum–implicitly unconstitutional. Congressional oligarchic overreach didn't begin with Trump, yet 'twould be best if it ended with him. Aquital is not enough.

  25. the only won that wins is the attorneys getting 1k an hour x 30000 hours x 200 attorney 1000 paralegals 500 legal secretaries then copies x 20.00 dollar a copy x 500 million… an attorney wants to be paid 100 hours for a 24 hour period.. lol

  26. When you have facts and the law on your side you only need to be competent to win. These guys have already won after only a couple of hours.

  27. So if we impeach him for trying to interfere in the upcoming elections we are interfering in the upcoming elections. Smh.

  28. The Dems want witnesses and documents, but the Republicans don't want that…so who doesn't want the facts to come out?? The Republicans and all I have heard from the Trump side are lies.

  29. The most devastating evidence comes from Sondland. He “presumed” or “assumed” a linkage between aid and an investigation ( he was the source of other bureaucrats’ “assumptions”) . Yet when he asked Trump directly what he wanted from the Ukraine he replies: “ Trump said:’ I want nothing’.“
    THIS IS THE DEMS’ STAR WITNESS? …. Why are we even here?

  30. The behavior of the Democrats’ over the last three years has been based on the conviction ( that is, certain belief) that Trump is guilty and “we just need to dig to find his crimes” and therefore normal laws of justice don’t apply. “We can flout the law because it’s Trump.”
    Well look what has happened. No crimes have been discovered and the Democrats are exposed as unprincipled and without integrity. His worst crime seems to be ignoring “expert” advice.

    BTW Maybe the Dems were always this corrupt? Maybe this is just a desperate attempt to prevent all of the corruption in the Ukraine ( inter alia) being exposed? Maybe “the swamp” is far worse than we imagined?

  31. BTW Rudy is really giving it large from the sidelines. He’s either completely nuts or he has really got something.
    It’s like claiming someone is a paedophile … there is no middle ground because someone’s going down hard for something.

  32. They say democrats have the burden of proof. They do not have evidence, or direct evidence. Ok, sounds fair. Now, Democrats say they have enough evidence, but the most convincing ones are 4 witnesses, still alive, and they demand them to appear before the Senate to prove them wrong or right; they want documents to be released from the WH, because they have the other recipients’s ones, one side of evidence.
    Now, the WH says: you can’t have either of them. In other words, go fetch them yourselves. Again, this is up to the Democrats to prove they are right.
    Now, the Senate is supposed to be neutral, like any trial jury. Normally. But we do know that they are not, because that is what they told us prior to the trial opening; that, at least we, the public, know where the Senate jury stands. But is this right that a trial jury has already made up its mind before the trial even started? If the jury knows there are existing witnesses, mentioned in some documents that one party has in hands, wouldn’t they want to listen to them, if they want to stay neutral ?

  33. @27.40. The excuse regarding the Ukrainian not seeing anything wrong with the call and saying publicly is very lame. Why on earth should the Ukrainians should take the risk of jeopardizing their relationship with the US by contradicting the official US? Where did you see or hear that weak government asking for help to an strong ally would contradict him? Doing so would have been totally foolish, irresponsible and equivalent to a death warrant. No sane government would have fallen into that trap

  34. @29:00 don’t tell me that this lawyer has any knowledge of how geopolitics work! Oh, how embarrassing that must be to be that ignorant and be the president’s lawyer. I feel sorry for that guy

  35. @33.45 that’s true. Whenever you demand something from someone against something you normally have to shout it loud, to make sure that everyone would know that you demand it, especially if that something is fishy. Yep, I think that is the normal course of a shady demand..

  36. If I want to hide an information, but someone is asking me about the information, should I answer, yes I know about it, but I am hiding it from you?

  37. And I'm sitting back realizing the Steele Dossier is also an effort by Hillary Clinton to interject foreign influence and gather smear material. So it's ok for Hillary and the Democrats to do this, but it's not ok for Trump to fenaggle something on the side??? Check your biases. Thank you. I haven't had time to watch all of the footage so far. That said, I'd like to remind people of a few things; Ukraine security has nothing to do with US National Security, that is a bold faced lie by Schiff. All we've been hearing about for 4 years is Trump-Russia, Trump-Russian, Trump Ukraine, Trump Ukraine… etc. . And I'm sitting back realizing the Steele Dossier is also an effort by Hillary Clinton to interject foreign influence and gather smear material. So it's ok for Hillary and the Democrats to do this, but it's not ok for Trump to fenaggle something on the side??? Check your biases.

  38. What a mess! All the State departments (foreign affairs) staffs job was turned into a nightmare while all were under the same impression that it's what Trump wanted. Now, what are the chances of that? Lol If not from Trump, then whom? Ah yes, you’ve been warned! A 'narcissist' and 'chaos' go together like hand and glove. Seen any chaos in politics within the last 3 years?

  39. @43.23 trick here is that there have been past numerous reports and direct testimonies that when Trump wants something to be done, he just implies it (Michael cohen and others mentioned it) , but you are supposed to know what to do, therefore, the order giver does not get caught, but the order carrier gets caught. Now, in a trial, you have to prove that, and this is the difficult part. Wow, #45 must have developed these manipulation skills at school: let the others get the blame, as long as I look clean.

  40. @45.40 that does not prove anything. That is why democrats did not show that part, although if you had followed the hearings, you would have

  41. @49.32. Why does not he add ‘ if we had found that the president was completely innocent, we would have said so?’ (Paraphrasing)

  42. What the defense is trying to say in laymons terms is Schiff is a po po face!! Yes, Shiff is a po po face!! Ok Shiff for brains!! Hahahahahahah!!!!

  43. Hey hey man!! Hey!! Don't act a fool!! This is serious business!! What you doing cutting up at this empeachment trial!! Come on now act profressional!! Ok alright I'll be good I'll be good!! I'll be good!! Ok now apologize to Mr Shiff for your rude and inappropriate behavior!!! Ok ok!! I'm sorry what I said!! So sorry!! Yes, I am so very sorry!! Hey!! Hey!! Shiff I am not sorry I called you a po po face mmmuuhhhhh!!! Hahahahahah!! Whooooo!!!

  44. Nobody has read the transcript, except the ones who are the most interested in knowing what is inside : the Dems.

  45. @1:16:24. For Godsake, stop repeating the same excuse over and over again, about Zelensky denying a quid pro quo. Everybody with a common sense would have done the same, if his country was at risk of losing its biggest ally. It is a necessary lie. I know I would’ve. So, this does not prove anything, Gentlemen lawyers. Please find a better counter argument.
    Also, why do you keep politicizing this trial ? You do it, not us, the public

  46. @1:18:00 I remember when the Dems handed over the subpoenas, the Trump administration just simply refuse to comply without explanation. Why is it, that only now, the defense just give an explanation? Why didn’t they give it before?

  47. 🅾️ Lazy angry Trump hating sore loser Democrats were so quick to rush through the impeachment process, in hopes of getting this done before Christmas, that they refused to wait for the courts to rule whether or not the witnesses House Democrats wanted to hear from and the documents they wanted to see could be produced. President Trump invoked executive privilege, meaning the information Democrats are interested is, in the president's eyes, of vital national security Every president in the past has done. House Democrats rushed to jam this thing through, said they absolutely had to keep President Trump from being re-elected. Now they're trying to put a bandaid on their horrible sloppy case. They want the Senate to make the case they failed to produce in the House under incompetent Nancy Pelosi.
    Of course, celebrities are quick to run with Democrats' talking points. Just look at actress Elizabeth Thorp. She seems to think there's no case if witnesses aren't called and documents aren't produced. And what better evidence does she have to cite than "Law & Order." The sad part is Americans who are unfamiliar with Congressional procedures are going to parrot Thorp's talking points, which come directly from Democrats' lies. And it's all based on ignorance and a lack of civics. Just shows how dumb and morally bankrupt most Hollywood is today.

  48. Michael Purpura….atty for Trump: says Trump's conversation was all about burden-sharing from European countries and corruption in Ukraine. THE UKRAINE president asked for help because Russia is attacking Ukraine. His people are being killed and Trump is holding the funds to aid Ukraine.

    ''SO ^THE PRESIDENT OF THE UKRAINE DID NOT KNOW THAT THE '''FUNDS''' WERE BEING HELD?'''

    Okay. So this is how the republicans are delivering their argument: TRUMP could not have committed a quid pro quo….because the president of Ukraine (who's country is under attack by Russia and his people are dying) is more interested in talking about purchasing some new weapons and Trump is more interested in telling him that only the U.S. is doing their share….but other European countries are not.
    And Trump talked with the Ukraine president about maybe purchasing new weapons.
    *THIS IS THE ARGUMENT PUT FORTH TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY THE REPUBLICANS WHO THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE DUMB.

    TRUMP HELD THE FUNDS FOR DAYS….FOR DAYS….FOR DAYS (AND TRUMP DID NOT HELP THE KURDS AT ALL WHEN THEY WERE BEING ATTACKED AND KILLED. THE KURDS WERE KILLED)….AND WE ARE SUPPOSE TO BE AN ALLY FOR THESE COUNTRIES. THE KURDS WERE WITH US BUT WE WERE NOT WITH THEM BECAUSE TRUMP IS IN OUR PRESIDENT'S OFFICE.

    As far as I am concerned when Trump held the funds for ''''''one day'''''' it was evidence of a quid pro quo. It means he wants something that he wants and is holding the money to try and get it.
    What was the purpose of holding the funds???? AND THIS….Trump said over and over to us that we were doing more than the rest of The European Union. He said that a lot. What was his reason for holding the funds….what was his reason for talking to a President who's country is at war and his people are dying????

    *This is WHY I don't belong to a '''party'''…..I have no party affiliation. I AM FOR AMERICA.
    That's my political position. I AM FOR AMERICA. (The ONLY true view.) Trump is in our high office and has been and IS a disgrace and it belittles our country and builds great distrust for America around the globe.
    *I have not forgotten what Putin and Xi Jinping (China) did….they had lunch, and smiled together. And that alone should be enough for all Americans to realize where the United States will soon be in the minds of people all over this planet. Is it worth it to us to lose our placement on the planet to support Trump in our top office when he did not win that office in the 2016 election in the first place?

    —margaret opine: anthropologist, veteran of U.S. Navy

  49. @1:41:02 the whistleblower. False reason. If Trump had not threatened publicly (on twitter actually) the whistleblower, and if the GOP had not done the same between their teeth, the whistleblower would not have to fear for his life, and eventually would have come of the woods. The Dems had the duty to protect him. They proposed a recorded testimony. I don’t know where that went

  50. The leader lawyer is very calm and that is a very good thing. However, his arguments leave me very ‘thirsty’, and I’m like ‘come on, make an effort to convince me, you can do better’

  51. Why has Rudy and trump gone back and forth on what they were doing and saying since the beginning? Why dont you mention that?…….why not?

  52. they are LYING and they are willfully obstructing witnesses, emails and tapes that show EXACTLY how trump did his dirty plot.

  53. Also, I have a question regarding the burden sharing. Trump was not happy with the way other countries did or did not act in Ukraine, in terms of aid, which is understandable. But Ukraine is the recipient of the aid not the provider, therefore does not have anything to do in terms of burden sharing. therefore In the transcript, Trump was just making a statement complaining about the unfair burden sharing, so why did the defense team insist on that part of he document? And what about the following question from Trump: ‘ I want you to do us a favor though..’ what is the defense team explanation on that ?
    So, Trump’s lawyers kept saying : the managers did not show you that, did not speak about that, did not mention that, but at the end of the day, they too, omitted to explain the now famous ‘ I want you to do… blablabla’ and they omitted to mention that on the Mueller report, it is said (paraphrasing)‘ if we had found that the president was completely innocent, we would have said so’. Can the trump’s lawyers explain, why they forgot to mention it?

  54. Well we’re sorry, however WE THE PEOPLE are sick and tired of EVERYTHING you DEMS & the SQUAD have done !! TRUTH,,,hahaha. “TO THINE OWNSELF BE TRUE”. See the other side ?? HOW LONG WERE YOU DEMS IN THE BASEMENT ?? The Wall: PRESIDENT TRUMP LOVES AMERICANS NOT ILLEGALS !!

  55. Executive privilege wasnt needed the impeachment isnt legally started until you take a VOTE of the house a vote that the dems lost 6 times already for 6 other things,and are well aware this is the rules,dems considered the president should be impeached over but not in this effort including once calling the 'squad' "wacky" and another time for saying "kneeling down in the national anthem is not patriotic" and other things on other attempts not included in this attempt number 7.without a vote of the house to start an impeachment inquiry they were acting with no consent of power from the courts and if the white house wants too be lawful they must ask the vote be taken first

    (the power of impeachment is an extension of the courts and they must vote too invoke that power at the start of an impeachment inquiry giving the body the legal authority too subpoena,one of the checks and balances that defend against unfair abuse of this power )

    But in this attempt schiff nadler and pelosi used a resolution to cheat the vote but that gave them no power to act in this way and should be thrown out back too the house so they can operate correctly and do the job they didnt the first time.additionally dems should be fined and new laws to protect from this kind of skipping of the rules as this whole process has been made intentionally invalid by themselves thinking a "resolution" after the facts gave them the power of the courts too act in this manner never mind the dems conduct in the house and the senate

    Im not a lawyer i listened too jim jordan for a total of 5 mins so this wasnt a total waste of our time,Thankyou very much senator jordan

  56. Can anyone be honest and just say that BOTH sides are corrupt and do NOTHING for the people? They cater to business and war only. Vote for REAL people like Bernie or Rand Paul ONLY or else we will never get out of this mess.

  57. SCHIFF, learn how to tell the TRUTH & hopefully your Friend Ed Buck doesn’t . You need to apologize to our Honorable President for imitating/lying about his phone call which started this TRAVESTY !! How’s the HUMPTY DUMPTY PARTIES going~ FUN HUH ??

  58. am a french national in paris, i have been following impeachment very seriously .. America should stand by its ideals and make it clear to the world that money and power are not ruling the world but that morality is. enouf of trump! how can you look at yourself in the mirror Is it a black one?

  59. The reason why I like the Republican presentation is because they present the facts. The reason why I don’t like the Democrats for impeaching our President is they present conjectures. This whole process only weakens our great nation, shame on Adam Schiff, nadler and Pelosi: I pray the voters in their districts answer the call to remove them from Congress.

  60. Love how the republicans consistently use the argument that the president was elected by the people…he lost the popular vote. So no he wasnt elected by the people. The electoral college ignored their constituents and elected him anyway. Gerrymandering at its finest.

  61. Amazing that the Deputy White House Counsel, Mike Purpura, lies to the senators within 90 seconds of starting his recitation of "the facts." He states that is couldn't be a quid pro quo because the Ukrainians didn't even know the aid was on hold until the end of August. That is not true. Olena Zerkle, Ukraine's deputy foreign minister, stated that they knew as early as July 25th, the very day that Trump illegally froze the aid. Her account is backed by Laura K. Cooper, the American deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, who said in her Congressional testimony during the impeachment inquiry that Ukrainian diplomats knew about the aid freeze at least by July 25, when they began to question United States officials about it.

    Mr. Purpura then showed clips of US Embassy officials testifying that as far as they knew, Ukraine didn't know about the freeze until August. But the scam was not being run by the state department (hence the need to "take out" Yovanovitch), it was being run by Rudy Guilianni, Lev Parnas, and Igor Fruman with the help of Sondland- so the state department officials wouldn't have known about the messages being delivered by Trump's goon squad. And I couldn't help but notice that Mr. Purpura didn't feature the video of Sondland testifying that it was, in fact, a quid pro quo- and that not only the Oval office visit but the military aid was being held up until they got their announcement of investigations into Biden.

    Isn't it illegal for a lawyer to lie to jurors in court? Especially in front of the Chief Justice of the Supreme court?

  62. The whole transcript or the redacted transcript? If we are looking at the entirety of evidence , why not call witnesses and allow all documents.Trumps record on Russia is other than described in this farcical opening argument.This is not about the last election, it is definitively about the fairness of the next!

  63. Does anyone else think that Adam Schifface created a straw man whistleblower, or is it just me? No laws protect the “identity” of a whistleblower, it only protects whistleblowers from retaliation by those he/she is accusing of wrongdoing. So, why all the effort by Schiff to protect the identity of this whistleblower he claims to not know, but his staff does?

  64. Janice , is this was about setting policy guess what lev is not an official he is not part of the government in the USA he has no background in anything at all how you are to come here and says he can set policy yes he can do that but not with peoples that are not official with in the usas sorry you got it wrongly

  65. Si sorry you are wrong not everyone testify yet the people that was there when the call happen john Bolton, Pompeo not everyone sorry get your fact straight

  66. CBS is so God-damned dishonest!!!
    Pres. Trump makes history by being the first sitting president to attend the March for Life and NBC doesn't even cover it!!!
    Nothing one second on their newscast!!!
    Trump is right!!!
    The news media is corrupt!!!

  67. "bla bla bla bad bad bad … this is in sum in character what the President was trying to medicate" Gees! What a CON-JOB he did on the Democrats!

  68. Trump & President Zelenskyy of Ukraine are on the phone. Trump has the check but is holding it from delivery and the president of UKRAINE, PRESIDENT ZELENSKYY said to Trump over the phone: '''I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense."'' No support has yet come. And he goes on to say: '''We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps…..''''' OH GIVE US ALL A BREAK!! A GOOD LEADER WOULD TALK LIKE THIS TO SOMEONE WHO IS HOLDING FUNDS TO HELP THEM FIGHT A WAR. He is trying to 'please' or 'appease' Trump hoping he would send the aid America has promised. Any and everybody would speak this way to get help for their family or their country.
    Zelenskyy likely gave up after this conversation. Ukraine says they were unaware that there was a hold on the funds. They learned about the hold on August 29th. That means from July 25th to August 29th they just thought America was not going to provide aid as promised. And went on thinking America lied.

    *People died because Trump wanted something from Ukraine before he gave Ukraine the money that WE THE PEOPLE wanted Ukraine to have. They found out on August 29th. It wasn't his money. Was he planning to take it as his own??? This is an obvious ''quid pro quo'':
    …………………………….. ""I want something from you before I give you this money."'''

    WHY DID TRUMP HOLD THE FUNDS????? ……WHY DID TRUMP HOLD THE FUNDS?????

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *