He who is ignorant of history wasn’t watching while it was happening!
The
Trump Inquisition – Epilogue
IF I HAD A VOTE – WHY & HOW
Having watched just about all of mercifully now ended Impeachment Trial, thought it’d be grossly inappropriate to offer a summation of why and how I would have voted in the matter. Therefore, here it is. Read at own risk.
First, I most assuredly am not a lawyer, don’t even play one on Social Media (whatever that is). In the interest of full disclosure, did cheat a bit on this. During a squandered youth at one time I held a Real Estate Broker license, Series 7 Security Exchange Commission license, and was an ‘Enrolled Agent’ qualified to represent clients before the Internal Revenue Service. In the end, though, all I really know about law is what I learned from my father, and just a whole lot of 1950’s TV. Also, if it counts, we have very smart daughter who is a real lawyer, and a favorite son-in-law who ought to be in Congress (whom I’m trying to impress with the above self-promotion).
Second, as with maybe half the sitting Senators, it is no secret I do not think much of Donald Trump the person. What he was as President can only be left to history for judgment. But, among the principles of law my father taught me is that a good lawyer can defend either side, and every juror must be objective. If we really want fairness and justice, we must first give it. This means we must listen to both sides; if you don’t, you’ll never know the whole story.
Third, I honestly believe the trial, if that what it is, was ill-advised at best. The victims were on the indicting grand jury, witnesses sit on the jury, and whole thing comes down to politics and not guilt or innocence. In the final Senator’s vote there were a mere seven candidates for ‘profiles in courage’.
My Overview As Of Now
the Case of House “Managers” (Prosecution)
Their presentation was about 10 hours extended over two days. In this observation, that was about twice the time it might have taken to present the case against Trump. A lot more information was presented than was germane to question of whether Trump ‘incited’ an insurrection. Much time was given to events of that day, damage done, and personal trauma inflicted. Presumably this was so the ‘jury’ could not argue there was no evidence to considered a riot even occurred.
Perhaps superfluous, but telling, the prosecution also pointed out irreparable damage done to our Democracy, how Trump has made worthless internationally the word of the President; and that he willingly destroyed US reputation in world in his attempt to overthrow certified legal results of the 2020 election.
Solely in this opinion, all of the above is moot.
There was, however, a complete, step-by-step, compelling, factual and well documented presentation by managers as to how event was instigated, enabled, and encouraged by Trump and his subordinates:
For two months preceding the event Trump was clearly and knowingly involved and encouraging of supporter efforts
He used Twitter and public statements to encourage gathering on specific date
Fifty-million campaign dollars were used to implement and finance the event as a Trump “call” to his supporters to action
Insider planning included stand-down orders to law enforcement authorities
He could have reasonably expected his words would incite reaction of some kind
During the event he failed and/or refused to give Presidential orders or personal instructions which could have saved lives
the The Case of the Defense
After inauspicious start, I thought the presentation was a clear and compelling exposition of their legal theories. Especially so given it was obviously their first time in the big leagues and had less than a week to be prepared.
Basically they made no visible effort to disprove any of submitted evidence, only disputed the manager’s interpretation.
These are central arguments as I heard them:
Due Process was not provided in the Impeachment process. They made cohesive argument “indictment” (i.e. Article of Impeachment) was flawed. It was rushed through without testimony or witnesses by emotionally involved, politically motivated House of Representatives.
NOTE: If anybody had asked me, which they were wise to not do, these are valid arguments.
The Trial itself was unconstitutional as it began after Trump had left office.
SIDEBAR: Delay in conveying Articles of Impeachment to Senate, and delay of trial until after January 20, 2021 were entirely decisions of and under control of then majority leader Republican Senator Mitch McConnell.
By bi-partisan vote the jurisdiction of Senate to hold trial was made a rule. Jurors were not to consider this theory of the Constitution in their deliberations. Republican Senator Burr (NC) specifically cited this rule as a criteria for his ‘guilty’ vote.
First Amendment allowed Trump to speak freely, even unrestricted; and opposition had taken text out of context to make their case.
As there was no insurrection as legally described. The only charge could be “incitement to violence”. There was no conspiracy participation on part of Trump to organize or incite violence.
How I would have voted
In the sure and certain knowledge this is a political and not strictly legal thing, mine is a split decision.
YES on Guilty of Incitement to Violence
The only issue on the table are the events and actions surrounding a riot on January 6th. Evidence may be understood differently by opposing sides. However, the facts are clear, recorded, and publicly available. The defense made no attempt at rebuttal to this.
The attack on the Capital was premeditated. Insurgents planned for it, knew what they were going to do before they got there. Day was chosen to coordinate with date promoted by Trump to ‘stop’ the electoral vote.
Trump failed to act in a timely and forceful manner to impede his followers, nor did he authorize forceful response where any other President of my lifetime would have been expected to act.
Any President of the United States has an inherent ‘apparent authority’ which imposes a greater weight of responsibility. What the President says must be reliable, this country has gone to war at his word. Those who attacked the Capital building would have never done so if the only speakers that day had been Rudy and Donny Jr. The actions of that day most definitely were done by people who believed it was what “my president ordered”. On this one specific occasion Trump sowed the wind, and the nation will reap the whirlwind. For this any POTUS must be held to account. He cannot turn his back and once again say, “I’m not responsible at all.”
NO on Denial of Future Office
[NOTE: Removal from office is not a factor here, but my observations would be similar.]
The only vote would be on denying ability to run again for office. Such a vote would not, in this opinion, be in the highest and best interest of country.
Seventy-four millions Americans can be wrong, but they voted for the guy. Denying the choice of voters has always led to tragic unintended consequences.
All that could come of not allowing him to run again would be to make him a “martyr”. From such a platform he could promote any agenda, implement any vendetta, and raise more money for any purposes.
This is not over. It has just begun. He will be occupied enough for some time in multiple civil lawsuits and criminal investigations. Plus, inquiry into any criminal involvement in the insurrection – such as was suggested by both his defense counsel and McConnell.
What I would have done different
Certainly the House of Representatives felt they were operating under the constraint of time, there being only two weeks between the riot and end of Trump term. In the mind of Democrat majority, Impeachment was the logical action to take.
If I were asked, and I most certainly was not, I would have argued for a ‘Censure’ of Trump and public rebuke of those involved in the speeches given that day.
Then, if I’d been asked, I would have suggested a formal Criminal Referral to the Justice Department for a complete investigation into the background and causes of the events in question. As one of defense lawyer pointed out: If there were crimes committed the appropriate authorities have the time, know how to build a case, and can make arrests.
Summary
Citizens of the United States of America were ill-served by the manner and methods of these events. As a result it will be years before all the truths are exposed of Trump’s intents and actions.
Donald Trump was not the first, and will not be the last habitual criminal to escape immediate consequences due to a somewhat strained legal technicality.
History demands those not watching closely will not see it for what it is, an ‘end of the beginning’ of what we once thought was America. Whatever we will be, it is not what we were because of Donald John Trump.
This fight ought to have been fought in the court of public opinion. It was not. The ‘fix’ was always ‘in’. This ‘trial’ was held in front of men and women who had largely made up their minds before the first day. Republican Members of the ‘jury’ conspired with the defense attorneys; during the proceedings some of the ‘jury’ ignored the testimony, occupied their self with busy work, some slept, others left the room rather than listen. History will condemn those who voted to ignore the facts or made too little of them. History will record, also, for better or worse we got the future their vote presents us.
One Last Thing
On January 6, 2021 there was an attempted coup in the Capital of the United States of America. That it was a failure resolves nothing. As a consequence of this attempt it was deemed needful by a sitting administration to muster 25,000 armed troops to insure a ‘peaceful transition’ of government. Nothing good has ever come of all this.
The attempted coup of January 2021 failed. But, as one life-long terrorism expert admonished: “Do you know what to call a failed coup? A rehearsal.”
He who is ignorant of history wasn’t watching while it was happening!
No comments:
Post a Comment