But we should be realistic about what it is - a purely political process,
looking into a political crime. Trump may or may not have committed statutory violations with his speech on Jan 6, but there, I think Trumpies defending him by focusing on specific words are on much stronger footing. Whether that, or other things like the Georgia call, are actual crimes will depend on the statutes and how they compare with Trump's actual statements and actions.
The political accusation to be considered by the senate is very different. Trump called for his "troops" to assemble. He then had some of his sycophants start to rile them up. Then he spoke, sent them off to "fight for their country (Americans know they were fighting to destroy it)" at the Capitol, and, what, went back inside to microwave some popcorn and enjoy watching what he'd unleashed, like a reality TV series finale? How did he react? Shouldn't he have been horrified, and immediately released a very powerful statement for the rioters to cease or face severe consequences? Shouldn't he have moved heaven and earth to get reinforcements in there? He probably should have gone there himself, which he actually said he was going to do, and appeal for calm in person.
All of those things plus the impact of the entire vote fraud disinformation campaign can be considered in the political process of the senate trial in ways that they can't necessarily in judicial proceedings. But given that it is political, sure, horse trading with repubs just moved to the minority should be expected.
IMO, that is one of the major resets needed by the country - a more realistic, less idealistic, view of what politics and government should look like in a democratic republic of 350 mil people.
[Post edited by hoolstoptheheels at 01/25/2021 09:27AM]
|
(
In response to this post by WahooRQ)
Posted: 01/25/2021 at 09:17AM