The impeachment trial brought home a painful reality. Trump is only part of the problem. The larger problem is that Trump is being shielded by a major political party that believes in his tactics and everything he stands for, and will defend literally anything he does.
The dramatic conclusion of the trial came when 7 Republicans joined the Democrats and voted to convict. And then— after voting to acquit—Mitch McConnell delivered a stunning speech in which he said that Trump had indeed incited the insurrection, and that “Trump was the only one who could have called it off.” However, McConnell explained that he’d voted to acquit because he didn’t believe the Senate had jurisdiction over a former president. (An absurd position, but never mind.)
In the words of one of my followers:
The day started with some drama. First, it looked like there would be no witnesses. Then last night, Republican House member Jaime Herrera Beutler released this devastating statement.
So the Democrats made a motion to bring her in as a witness. There was a vote. The Senate voted to allow witnesses. Then there were no witnesses pursuant to an agreement that resulted in the Democrats being able to enter as evidence Jaime Herrera Beutler’s statement.
Left-leaning Twitter erupted with anger. There was much name-calling: The Democrats are weak! They’re spineless! They rolled over and let McConnell win!
Reason #1: Because they were not needed. The Democrats got what they wanted: The statement they wanted was entered as evidence. The Republicans got nothing (but they acted like they won because there were no witnesses)
Reason #2: Witnesses are not necessarily the end-all and be-all. They can be unpredictable. They can change their testimony, they can falter under cross-examination.
Reason #3: This is particularly true with hostile witnesses. They are hard to control and they can say things that undermine the case. The Democrats approached some of the possible witnesses, all of whom indicated that they didn’t want to cooperate, which makes them, by definition, hostile. (The only witnesses that would have made any difference would have been Republicans and, except for Jaime Herrera Beutler, nobody who would have made a difference wanted to cooperate.)
Reason #4: With hostile witnesses, it’s better to use their pre-recorded statements because the prosecution already knows what they are going to say, so they won’t be flung any embarrassing surprises. That’s why the House Managers played the recording of McConnell denouncing Trump as inciting the riot. The House Managers had the statement they wanted without giving the witness a chance to help the defense.
Reason #5: Many of the possible witnesses, for example, the rioters, are under investigation so they could plead the fifth.
Reason #6. The House already made its case very strongly, and witnesses would not have changed the minds of many of the Senators, who had already decided to acquit on technical grounds (the Senate doesn’t have jurisdiction, etc.) The fact that the House already proved its case on the facts is backed up by McConnell’s statement that he voted to acquit for jurisdictional reasons, but he believes that Trump incited the rioters. Why take a chance with hostile witnesses and ruin a strong case?
Reason # 7: Witnesses would have dragged the trial out many, many weeks. The Republicans threatened to stop Senate business and they could have made a lot of trouble. We are in a pandemic. Senate business would stop. For example, the defense could submit as many requests for witnesses as they wanted. Each request would require 2 hours of debate. The result would be a circus that stopped all Senate business, which would be blamed on the Democrats.
Reason #8: We learned later that the Senate Democrats didn’t want witnesses probable because of Reason #7 along with the knowledge they had that witnesses would not change any votes.
Q: I wonder if McConnell also wants Trump gone for good and he’s prepared to vote to convict in order to move forward with the 14th Amendment?
The Fourteenth Amendment allows for a person who has incited a rebellion against the United States to be barred from holding office in the future. (The Fourteenth Amendment was one of the three Amendments added to the Constitution immediately after the Civil War).
The hitch is that it probably requires a court to first rule that Trump did indeed incite a rebellion. This is because of the prohibition against Bills of Attainder. (In this case, it’s not actually called a Bill of Attainder, but same idea.)
So what’s next? Business as usual. The D.A. in Fulton County, GA is looking into criminal charges for his call to Raffensperger. There are other criminal investigations and lawsuits in the works. These things take time. I think I’ll do a page keeping track of them all.
So how do we save the republic from the threat of fascism?
The hard way, I’m afraid. If it makes you feel any better:
From a different poll, more than 70% of Americans believe Trump was at least partly responsible for the insurrection.
I’m afraid not. More likely is that the Republican Party shrinks and hardens into a white nationalist party, and no longer even pretends to be conservative. Where else will all those white nationalists go? They want a party, too.
They will remain dangerous. The way to counter this is for more people to get involved in local politics, because right now, that’s where the Republican power is centered. Even in my small coastal CA town, the white nationalists are trying hard to gain a strong footing in local government.
It’s hard to win national elections. It gets harder to win Senate seats. But those local seats that nobody pays attention to? Easy.
The 2020 election taught us the importance of (for example) local election boards and state legislatures.
Pay attention.
