The Senate Trial

So, it happened. After being impeached for incitement of insurrection, Donald Trump was acquitted by the Senate by a vote of 57-43, 7 Republicans joining the 50 Democrats in a total 10 shy of the 2/3 super-majority needed to convict.

What follows is a summary of everything I personally have heard about the case:

Main Arguments For Convicting

  • There is little ambiguity that Trump directed his crowd towards the Capitol Jan. 6 with violence-imbued language.
    • Near the end of his speech: “And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. … So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.”
  • He did not immediately call the crowd off once it was clear they were turning violent and breaking into the building.
  • Later statements did not help either and could be interpreted as praising the rioters.
  • Trump’s language and messaging from the November election until the riot consistently repeated the falsehood that we won the election and that the entire system was rigged against him in a massive conspiracy. These claims are false, but believing in them can be dangerous especially when you think the very fate of your country is on the line.
    • Trump must’ve been aware of this, and besides, ignorance of a massive angry mob does not excuse you for continuously inciting a massive angry mob.
  • All of this could be interpreted as Trump wanting a coup attempt to overturn the election that he knew he lost. It should be unforgivable for anyone, let alone a sitting president, to do this.
  • Conviction would prevent Trump from holding office again, a good thing given what happened last time he was removed from office.

Main Arguments Against Convicting

I’ll order these from most to least convincing, at least for me:

  • Conviction/impeachment is primarily a tool to remove a president from office, an argument that Mitch McConnell used despite also denouncing Trump’s actions for many of the reasons above.
    • Counterargument: conviction/impeachment can also be a tool to keep a former president from holding office again, which is pertinent in this case. If it was only for removal, then a lame-duck president could do absolutely anything they wanted their last few days in office because it’d be unlikely the House and Senate could move fast enough to impeach and convict.
  • Trump was simply exercising his first amendment rights! Democrats say “fight” all the time in their speeches too!
    • Counterargument: First amendment rights are not absolute; see any number of hate-speech crimes (where similarly, plausible threats of violence occur) or perhaps leaking confidential information. Both are """just people saying things :)""" but clearly illegal. There is not much different about this from the former, and in fact the statements are higher (implicit threats against the highest legislative body in the nation, not just a single person).
  • The riot wasn’t actually that bad.
    • Counterargument: they literally broke into the Capitol. That alone makes the United States look like an utter fool on the world stage. The fact that a sitting president was seen to incite it makes it even worse.
  • Antifa did it

I think from reading this you know what side of the fence I sit on. I believe that convicting Donald Trump would’ve been the correct thing to do and I highly respect the 7 Republican senators as well as the entire body of Democratic ones who voted to convict. Trump’s stain on America’s reputation will not be forgotten any time soon, especially by the world at large. I worry for what this means for America’s future.