Musings on Trump's Second Impeachment...

In a few minutes, the U.S. Senate will be conducting Donald Trump's second impeachment trial. Today's focus will apparently be on the constitutional question concerning whether the Senate can impeach a president no longer in office. Given the paucity of constitutional text on the matter, it is an issue ripe for debate among constitutionalists. Most addressing the issue side with the position that the Senate can in fact convict an official, including the president, that is no longer in office. 

In the end, does the legal question even matter? The Senate trial is a political process, and the realities are the constitutional question doesn't appear to matter to Republican or Democratic senators---the only issue here is that this is a political one: either punish Trump for his atrocious behavior, or shall we  move on?  In the end, democratic senators will vote to convict, perhaps joined by a handful of republican senators. But ultimately, Trump will not be convicted. Was that even the goal of this process? It seems like a public shaming and denunciation of the man is what matters. The factual question concerning whether he in fact incited an insurrection does not seem to be the central question. 

I also find it interesting how few media commentators have focused on his January 6, 2021, speech, that purportedly led to the coup attempt. I believe the reason so few have focused on it is because there simply isn't much there--he does use the reference to "fight," but was he using the term to suggest promoting violence? Looking at the text of his speech, it doesn't seem to be the case. Therefore, if a successful argument is going to be made concerning inciting an insurrection, the prosecution has to focus on  his statements and acts leading up to (and perhaps after) his January 6th speech.  I am indeed interested to see what evidence the House managers will present. 

A few further questions to ponder: should Trump be made to blame for words and acts of others? Should we attribute to Trump, Giuliani's words: "trial by combat"? How about Donald Jr's speech? I do not believe either should, absent more evidence concerning Trump's involvement in directing or writing those words.  What the prosecution will thus be left with are Trump's words and acts leading up to and during January 6th---will it be enough? Will it even matter?

Comments

[anon]

JUst watched the first part of the House opening.

Played a highly edited video, which showed T saying "March up ..." but cut off before he said "peacefully let your voices be heard."

It is so telling to hear the Dems quoting MLK that a riot is the language of the unheard, that so long as there is injustice there will be unrest in the streets, to go "get up in the faces" of the evil Republicans, while cities burned all summer long, while courthouses and statehouses and government officials were violently attacked. The Dems cheered it all on, because it helped in the election effort.

The most striking part of the Dem video was, I believe, unintentional. We saw law enforcement shoot someone, at point blank range, for teh crime of trespassing. The crawl over the scene simply stated that the victim died.

In many scenes, there were five or ten police officers attempting to repel crowds of many thousands. If there was such a long run up to this - if T is not only guilty for his words that day (which were obviously inadequate to support the charges -- but for the run up, why weren't the Capital defenses activated?

[A non]

"...the only issue here is that this is a political one: either punish Trump for his atrocious behavior, or shall we move on?"

Or not punish him for having done anything wrong?

Here's a real political issue: has the Congress just instantiated the American version of a Committee of Public Safety, or Stalin-Era, trial, simply to delegitimize and eradicate a political opponent?

Do most American law profs not see that this looks totalitarian to the rest of the world, and that it appears that way because it is? Don't you think, even if only in the back of your minds for the briefest of moments, that this trial makes America look like a banana republic?

[Social Justice Warrior]

Tweet version of this post:
Pro-BLM violence: Good
Pro-Trump violence: Bad

[anon]

Another thing I noticed about the Dem highly edited and spliced and inaccurate (by a professional film maker apparently) video, not much damage caused by folks who, according to the Dems, were attempting to overthrow the gov't of the US.

According to the NYT: "Damage to the interior of the building was largely limited to broken glass, busted doors and graffiti ... the residue of various pepper sprays, tear gas and fire extinguishers ... will need to be carefully cleaned ...."

I didn't see much graffiti in the video. The translation of the NYT story is: most of the damage to the buildings was done by law enforcement. The damage amounted to that during a few hours of the rioting done in one city, on one night; but the rioting went on night after night, applauded by teh Dems.

The lives of individuals, many struggling people the Dem claim to support, were destroyed by vicious mobs. Wanton violence and looting.

What was the response by the Dems?

Quote MLK to support the riots. Bail out the rioters! Object to law enforcement and the Nat'l Guard deployments as fascist (so telling now that the Dems have turned Wash into a military encampment). Encourage the rioters to do more damage, to occupy and destroy, to harass people on the basis of race. Destroy anyone who tries to defend himself/herself.

The Dems are making themselves known by reason of this proceeding. They have lost any sense of liberalism. They are now a totalitarian party, seeking absolute power and authority by any means. The point of this impeachment is pr. That, in and of itself, condemns the Dems as a bunch of unprincipled ideologues.

When I saw that woman shot, a point blank range, THRU A DOOR THAT HADN'T BEEN OPENED, I listened for a Dem to say ANYTHING ABOUT HER LOSS OF LIFE. Nothing. They used her life as a weapon to support their awful, divisive claims. It is just so disgusting. They hate so much, they are so vile in their anger and self righteousness.

I am so disgusted by the party that I grew up in. It is nothing like the Dem party of even the 1990s. What happened?

[Bill]

THRU A DOOR THAT HADN’T BEEN OPENED. No need to open the door, it appears she was going through the window that had been blown out. He head was on the other side.

https://youtu.be/AWMpTHLJXbw

[Ediberto Roman]

Hi all,

I agree Anon, it was a sad day for all Americans. Social Justice Warrior, you missed my point--all violence is bad. If anything, the post was forgiving to Trump. I even had Anon agree with me--at least until he reads my post today. Sorry, Anon--45 is almost impossible to defend. It is a close case nonetheless. Bill, I agree. A terrible day and I am so sad a proud vet lost her life. But she was in the wrong and it is easy for us to second-guess that officer. As someone that has witnessed violence and even death, I would never second guess that officer. He acted reasonably under the circumstances.

[anon]

Ediberto

I don't want to stand on Trump's defense. Like most of us, I think, who can't stand the Dems for what they have become, I don't therefore conclude that Trump is without fault (this is the Dem way: if you are with us, you are beyond reproach, if you are not with us, you are evil).

Which leads me to the incredible comment by Bill above. I don't even have to rebut it.

Just close your eyes, and imagine that woman was not white.

As for the impeachment, I have watched many hours of the same arguments by the Dems: over and over and over and over. The more they repeat these over the top allegations, the less credible they become.

COnsider one glaring self contradiction: Trump incited the riot for months before 1/6. If so, how do you explain the handful of police that can be seen trying to repel what appeared to be tens of thousands? Who was in charge of security at the Capital that day?

[anon]

PS
If there is credible evidence that Trump reduced or withdrew security at the Capital on 1/6, then the impeachment managers should have and would have introduced it. To the contrary, it is my understanding Trump wanted and authorized the National Guard to act on that day.

I would like to hear from all you "holier than thou" Dems. Who was in charge of security at the Capital on 1/6? What investigations are being authorized by the Dems (given that they are in control of both houses) to find out what really happened, and the reason the security was so clearly inadequate.

If there is one thing the events since 1/6 have shown, the Dems are quite capable of relying on teh police and the military, to brutal extents, when the Dems feel that THEIR interests are at stake.

All those folks whose lives were destroyed by mobs and riots that the Dems supported last year? Nah, they didn't deserve protection, did they?

[A non]

"Sorry, Anon--45 is almost impossible to defend. It is a close case nonetheless."

There's nothing close about this at all. You are charging Trump with inciting insurrection. This, despite the FBI evidence before the event of who had organized the break-in. This, whilst editing videos of Trump's own words (to omit key portions). This, whilst presenting videos of what happened inside the building, as if that somehow establishes a causal link.

You are not the defenders of the rule of law. You are its executioners. You render the very concept of incitement - even if not delimited to the technical legal category as established under US law - vacuous.

Whatever one may think of Trump or the Republican party, what the Democrat party is doing with this sham trial is impossible to defend. It is a disgrace to Western Civilization. America will never recover from this. The mask of democracy has fallen away, and the authoritarianism lying beneath is repugnant to the rest of the world.

[anon]

Just watched teh closing.

A non, so correct.

The tell: The Dems are incapable of self reflection. They are so drunk on their lust for power ...

Failed Russia investigation (was that investigation rigged, Dems?), followed by failed Ukraine impeachment (frivilous), followed by this failed attempt. It isn't that they are right but lose on politics.

It is that they are deluded by hate and can't control themselves.

The Dems declared that the election of T was illegitimate (based on grounds proven false by the SPecial Counsel) and declared that the impeachment would begin LITERALLY on the day T took office.

The Dems are moving toward silencing dissent in the press, in partnership with big corporations (to students of history, sound familiar?). The Dems are claiming the right to consolidate absolute power based on narrow victories: please don't cite the margin in CA as proof that Biden won by overwhelming numbers in the popular vote, the Dems lost seats in the House, barely holding a tiny majority, and managed to fight to a draw in the Senate. (To students of history, sound familiar?) The Dems are pandering to and fomenting divisions to alienate the people from one another, in order to better control them. (To students of history, sound familiar?)