The third impeachment trial of an American president got underway in earnest on Tuesday, amid an atmosphere of instant recrimination and polarization.

One small exception came when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Addison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellObama calls on Senate not to fill Ginsburg's vacancy until after election Planned Parenthood: 'The fate of our rights' depends on Ginsburg replacement Progressive group to spend M in ad campaign on Supreme Court vacancy MORE (R-Ky.) made a last-minute concession, announcing that each side would have three days — not two as he had previously asserted — to make its case.

But that was a rare, and relatively minor, shift from McConnell, who has previously said that he would coordinate the conduct of the trial with the White House.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Do Americans really believe he wants a fair trial? I don’t think so,” McConnell’s Democratic counterpart, Minority Leader Charles Schumer Chuck SchumerPelosi orders Capitol flags at half-staff to honor Ginsburg Ginsburg in statement before her death said she wished not to be replaced until next president is sworn in Democrats call for NRA Foundation to be prohibited from receiving donations from federal employees MORE (N.Y.), said at a news conference before proceedings got underway.

When the action moved to the Senate floor, the arguments ran along well-worn tracks — but with added gravity and drama percolating through the day’s events.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff Adam Bennett SchiffTop Democrats call for DOJ watchdog to probe Barr over possible 2020 election influence Overnight Defense: Top admiral says 'no condition' where US should conduct nuclear test 'at this time' | Intelligence chief says Congress will get some in-person election security briefings Overnight Defense: House to vote on military justice bill spurred by Vanessa Guillén death | Biden courts veterans after Trump's military controversies MORE (D-Calif.) spearheaded the Democratic case in the upper chamber.

The president’s lawyers, Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow Jay Alan SekulowNow, we need the election monitors Judge denies Trump's request for a stay on subpoena for tax records Judge throws out Trump effort to block subpoena for tax returns MORE, laid out the counterattack — surely mindful that Trump himself would be monitoring proceedings from 4,200 miles away, where he was attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

No one expects Trump to be convicted and removed from office. Such an outcome would require about 20 Republican senators to turn on him, and there is no evidence this will happen.

But both parties, and the allies clustered around Trump, know the battle for public opinion is of vital importance to the president’s hopes of a second term.

ADVERTISEMENT

Will Trump be wounded, politically speaking, by the presentation of evidence against him and the spotlight on the trial?

Or can he and his allies jiujitsu the process to their advantage, arguing that Democrats are seeking to undo the verdict of the voters who elected the 45th president in the first place?

“It is an extremely historic event. Everyone has remarked that it is only the third impeachment trial in U.S history but its significance goes far beyond that,” said Allan Lichtman, a professor at American University and the author of a 2017 book calling for Trump’s impeachment.

“The charges are by far the most serious charges ever leveled against an American president,” he said.

For Democrats, the evidence is clear-cut that Trump sought to pressure a foreign leader — President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine — to interfere in American politics by investigating former Vice President Joe Biden Joe BidenSenate Republicans face tough decision on replacing Ginsburg What Senate Republicans have said about election-year Supreme Court vacancies Biden says Ginsburg successor should be picked by candidate who wins on Nov. 3 MORE and his son Hunter Biden.

Democrats cite the White House’s own record of the call, as well as damning evidence that was presented to the House during its investigation — including by the United States ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland Gordon SondlandGOP chairman vows to protect whistleblowers following Vindman retirement over 'bullying' Top Democrat slams Trump's new EU envoy: Not 'a political donor's part-time job' Trump names new EU envoy, filling post left vacant by impeachment witness Sondland MORE.

Schiff, speaking on the Senate floor, accused the GOP of trying to “rush the trial … to cover up his misdeeds,” as senators looked on impassively.

But Cipollone and Sekulow hit back in fiery speeches.

Team Trump’s case is centered less on the evidence and more on the contention that Democrats are engaged in a partisan effort to oust the president.

Sekulow insisted “there was a desire to see him removed” from the day Trump took office. Cipollone accused Democrats of wanting to “steal two elections” — the suggestion being that the opposition party was trying to both invalidate Trump’s 2016 win and stymie his chances of a second term.

One key question is whether either side can find some point of leverage to shift voters from their trenches.

Polls so far suggest a nation deeply divided on impeachment, as on so much else.

The RealClearPolitics polling average on Tuesday afternoon indicated there was less than a single percentage point dividing public opinion: 47.3 percent wanted Trump convicted and removed from office and 47.5 percent did not.

Trump was restrained by his standards for most of the day. As of late Tuesday afternoon, he had only tweeted the instruction that people should “READ THE TRANSCRIPTS!” — presumably of his call with Zelensky.

The president will, however, sit for a CNBC interview early on Wednesday morning — and there is always the possibility that his Twitter account will erupt in the interim.

Meanwhile, Democrats will press the case that Republicans are mounting a sham trial — and Republican unity shows little signs of fraying.

On Tuesday afternoon, a proposal from Schumer to see more documents was defeated, 53-47.

The vote was precisely along party lines.