Former Trump has been acquitted of impeachment a second time. This is only a surprise to people who see impeachment for what it is in modern times: A show trial with a kangaroo court.
Consider the following:
- Trump was charged by the House of Representatives with "Incitement to Insurrection". The Democrats and their media allies made every effort to connect Trump to the rioters who breached security at the U.S. Capitol on 6 January. During the trial, they played video of the rioters who were stupid enough to allow themselves to be filmed. They submitted this as evidence of a crime. I agree: A crime committed by the rioters. What they failed to do was connect the rioters to Trump. After all, the charge was "incitement". If one can't draw a line from Trump's words to the criminal acts perpetrated on the grounds of the Capitol, there goes the case. They included his speech on 6 January that “if you don’t fight like hell" in the articles of impeachment, a phrase commonly uttered by the Democratic members of Congress, including the impeachment managers themselves!
- The media routinely and deceptively implied or outright lied about the content of Trump's speech at the rally (a legal, constitutionally-protected protest), insinuating that his words encouraged supporters to invade the Capitol, despite a cursory examination of the speech explicitly encouraged supporters to peacefully protest the certification of the election results. I know some conservatives have said not to ignore the two months of Trump's rhetoric prior to the the events of 6 January, but if anything, that hurts the case against Trump: If anything, Trump's speech should have cooled passions to below the threshold of lawlessness. If Trump's supporters were whipped into a frenzy, the implication is they're acting on orders and not with free will. But if the speech encouraged peaceful protest, then the supporters acted with free will and Trump deserves less blame.
- Unlike the first impeachment trial, where the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice John Roberts, declined to preside over the second trial, which started after Trump had left office.
- Speaker Nancy Pelosi has railed against the "cowardice" of the GOP senators in voting to acquit. Excuse me, Madame Speaker, but it seems we have two paths before us:
- The impeachment trial was like a civil or criminal jury trial, where the prosecution and defense present evidence, question and cross-examine witnesses, and try to persuade a jury of the defendant's guilt or innocence, all while an impartial judge rules on the admissibility of evidence, testimony, etc. as a matter of law. If the impeachment trial was this, then the majority of GOP senators were not persuaded by circumstantial evidence and testimony. In other words, the impeachment managers did not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trump was guilt of incitement. The verdict would need to be unanimous. Trump's life and liberty would have been imperiled by a conviction.
- The impeachment trial was less beholden to the rules and procedures governing civil and criminal trials. Members of the jury (senators) were pretty sure of how they were going to vote on the verdict beforehand. One two-thirds were required to convict. A member of the jury was permitted to vote on the verdict and preside over the trial (Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT). The worst penalty Trump could have faced would be to be barred from running for political office again.
- So which is it, Madame Speaker? Were the senators "cowardly" for refusing to vote to convict in a trial where Trump's guilt would've had to been proven, or one where the verdict was known before the trial began (Uncle Joe from Georgia sends his regards).
- Pelosi also criticized Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for refusing to take up impeachment before Trump had left office. That's a bit disingenuous: The Senate was in recess from 7 January through 19 January. Now, as Sen. Majority leader (until 20 January 2021), McConnell could have called the Senate back early, but it was doubtful a trial could have begun and concluded in the time allotted. In fact, the articles of impeachment against Trump were voted upon by the House of Representatives on 13 January, so the soonest the trial could have begun would have been the next day, 14 January. Remember that, while new senators had assumed office and retiring/defeated senators left office on 3 January, the leadership structure was set to change on 20 January. Six days to adjudicate a trial? Maybe in Stalinist Russia or some banana republic.
And now they're talking of barring Trump from office through other means: civil or criminal court (Question: Why didn't they pursue this in the first place?) or passing legislation (Pretty sure they need to re-read the Constitution).
At some point, you gotta wonder if it's personal.
