Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
The US House of Representatives impeached Donald Trump a second
time. The impeachment was for Incitement of Insurrection, focusing
on his January 6 rally and the insurrection at the US Capitol that
followed.
  

    
The Article of Impeachment says, in part: "President Trump gravely
endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of
Government. He threatened the integrity of the democratic system,
interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a
coequal branch of Government. He thereby betrayed his trust as
President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States."
  

    
The Article of Impeachment has been sent to the US Senate, and over
the next few weeks we'll see a trial to determine whether Trump will
be convicted. Here's a backgrounder from Vox:
<https://www.vox.com/2021/1/25/22242329/senate-impeachment-trial-trump-rules>

How likely is conviction? And what will we learn about Trump's
actions and the insurrection?
  

    
Given that all but five Senate Republicans voted to quash the
impeachment, I'd say that the possibility of conviction is currently
low. I have to wonder, though, if enough can be brought out - and
somehow disseminated (I am mindful that during the first
impeachment, for instance, Fox News didn't broadcast the words of
the witnesses--instead they had their pundits talking over them.) so
as to make the Trump brand synonymous with something distasteful,
treasonous, and anti-American. That would be enough (and it would be
a hill almost as hard to climb as getting a conviction, but one with
much more consequential results).
  

    
Ari's take is what I have been hoping for all along, including the
first impeachment. Damage his optics as much as possible to reduce
his role in the ongoing conversation. He could kill McConnell with a
fire extinguisher on a Fox live broadcast and still not be
convicted.
  

    
A Senate conviction was only slightly less impossible this time
than it was last time. Still worth having the trial, to get
all the traitors to stand up and give their names.

And then AG Garland charges Trump under 18 USC sec. 2383 with
the same result in the end: barred from federal office.
  

    

Here's the full text of the House Resolution, including the single
article of impeachment:
<https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hres24ih/pdf/BILLS-117hres24ih.pd
f>

I'm interested in how Schumer will conduct the trial.  In trying Trump's
initial impeachment, McConnell famously disallowed the presentation of
evidence or witnesses. Schumer will, I expect, allow both, which may expose
malfeasance that even the Republicans will be unwilling to forgive.

Though, even if the Republicans remain unwilling, (jef) is probably on the
right track with his prediction in <5>.
  

    
I wouldn't convict him of killing McConnell either.
  

    
Unless the senators are willing and able to stand up to their
constituents, I don't think it matters how much evidence is
introduced at a trial. Their voters will find a way to negate them.
As Jeff GOldblum said in The Big Chill, Rationalizations are better
than sex. And when rationalizations don't even have to be rational,
when all you need to explain anything away is a couple of sentences
strung together that make something like sense, the orgy can get
pretty darn nihilistic. 
  

    
I'd like to see this long behind us, the name of Trump all but
forgotten.
  

    
What Gary says about the constituents.

>which may expose malfeasance that even the Republicans 
>will be unwilling to forgive

I mean, Trump incited a mob to attack the Capitol with the sitting
legislative itself in it.
And if anyone doesn't believe he meant to do that, or doesn't
believe he wasn't OK with the mob doing it, there is his utter
inaction afterwards as he watched the riot on TV.
All that is pretty much on the table right now, and if the Senators
can ignore that - I mean, they were the ones in peril at the time -
it seems that they could ignore anything.

And like Rob, I would love to never hear of Trump again, but we have
to pull his fangs first.  What is that meme floating around FB
nowadays?  A unpunished attempt is just a training exercise?
  

    
Oh, hadn't heard that one. Bang on. 

All the Dems and the justice-inclined public can hope for is to put
their objections on the record for posterity. It will result in no
charges, no trial, no consequences. 

It still matters. I see a lot more gumption in the younger,
up-and-coming Dem legislators, and this is at least a building block
for future attempts at demanding just behavior from the Repubs. I
see the same thing in younger voters. This will signal to some of
them that it's not worth getting worked up, the system is broken and
dishonesty wins. But it's pissing more of them off, and they're
demanding better.

So any payoff for the impeachment comes down the line, not
immediately.
  

    
It's odd though because right now Trump is at one of his weakest
points.  His media connections are down; he's lost the White House
briefing room and press pool; whatever Cipollone told Trump that
shook him up after January 6th is still ringing in his ears.   He
doesn't have the staff support anymore that he had in the White
House.

If there was any point when it was optimal to stand up to him and by
proxy his supporters, it's now.
  

    <scribbled by rsires Thu 28 Jan 21 17:03>
  

    
This op-ed by a former CIA anti-insurgency specialist on how the US
can recover is encouraging, except that the recommendations assume
that Trump will be convicted by the Senate.  

Without that, the whole analysis falls apart. 

So, can he be convicted? And, if not, what can be done to stop the
fascist insurgents?


How to Defeat America’s Homegrown Insurgency
<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/27/opinion/how-to-defeat-americas-homegrown-
insurgency.html>
  

    
Trump is just a vessel, a symptom in some ways. He definitely
channels what the Party is sending, but it's the stream of shit that
matters over the long run.
  

    
As usual <Sweeney> speaks for me.
  

    
I'm with jnfr. He's a symptom. But it's important to treat the
symptom.
  

    
It is unlikely that Trump will be convicted, yet it is important
that the trial take place. Following the trial, the question is
whether Trump or even trumpism without Trump himself will remain
consequential. 

I think it will not. Trump himself is without his Twitter and
without title or staff. He will be increasingly beset by massive
financial pressures, law suits, investigations, and likely state
court criminal indictments.

His followers are increasingly associated with extremist groups that
are identified by the federal government as 
domestic terrorists.

Arrests, indictments, trials, and convictions will accumulate for
participants in the January 6 insurgency.

All the while, the Biden administration will be plodding along
restoring governmental normalcy and competence in both domestic and
foreign affairs.

I foresee increasing normalcy and a retreat of the extreme right to
frustrated irrelevancy.

When the Republican Party inevitably fragments into far right and
principled conservative, this current trumpist outburst will have
quieted.

Sausage making in Washington DC, however, will remain ugly.
  

    
"Bracing for the prospect of a likely acquittal, Senate Democrats
are eyeing a rapid-fire impeachment trial for former president
Donald Trump — as short as one week — while also contemplating
alternatives such as censure that could attract more support from
Republicans."

<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-consider-impeachment-alterna
tives-censure/2021/01/27/fdfd9b6c-60bd-11eb-afbe-9a11a127d146_story.html>

However I believe they have to impeach in order to pass legislation
to prevent Trump from taking office again.
  

    
I worry that the "let's just put this behind us" contingent grows
with every new development. It's the short-sighted view but a very
tempting one. I mean, sure, you've had a cancer diagnosis, but it's
just a few cells, and maybe it won't grow anyway, and there's so
much more on your plate right now ...
  

    
> However I believe they have to impeach in order to pass
legislation to prevent Trump from taking office again.

I think that's an open question. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment
seems to indicate that a simple majority of Congress (or maybe even
a judicial ruling) would need to find that Trump had "engaged in
insurrection or rebellion against the [US Constitution], or given
aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." 

<https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv>
  

    
During the timespan of Nixon's impeachment, once the public finally
became aware of information showing his misconduct, the tide turned
and broke his Republican support.

During Trump's second impeachment trial, there may not be enough
time for this Century's "smoking gun" to be revealed and turn the
tide one more time.
  

    
People have much more investment in their tribes now than they did
50 years ago, too.
  

    
Also, Nixon was never impeached. He had enough respect for the
country and the office to resign before the House could act.
  

    
I think you are giving the traitor credit for more decency than he 
actually displayed.  He resigned to keep his pension and perks.   He knew 
he was guilty and would would be convicted if he stood trial.  He also 
knew something that the rest of us didn't.  He'd had the Paris Peace talks 
killed so that he could have the war to run on as an election issue.  An 
move that resulted in the deaths of 35-40 thousand American troops.

Nixon was in it for Nixon, and didn't really care how much damage he was 
doing to the country.   He spent the rest of his life sitting on that 
secret, knowing that if anyone found out, his life would be over.  And the 
only reason we know now was the posthumous release of Bob Haldeman's 
notes.