Rider of the Storm: The End of The Second Impeachment of Donald Trump
It’s not surprising and yet it is.
The second trial of Donald Trump, following his second impeachment ended on Saturday with his acquittal with a vote of the Senate, 57-43, ten votes short of the two-thirds voted needed to convict the former President. None of this was a surprise, but it was still frustrating to hear that yet again, Donald Trump escapes punishment.
There are a few observations on a number of actors that I want to talk about, so let’s start with the Dear Leader himself.
Donald Trump:
In the movie Despicable Me 3, the big bad is Balthazar Bratt, a washed-up 80s kid star. His catchphrase on the show was “I’ve been a bad boy!” He would always say this in a faux bashful way after doing something that was incredibly wrong. Donald Trump is a lot like Balthazar Bratt in that he can do things that shock the conscience and yet can look like the aggrieved innocent. He’s able to incite a crowd and yet make it look like he never said a threatening word.
Trump somehow never seems to face the consequences of his actions. He is always able to find a way to not only get off, but also look like the victim. He could have gone on a shooting spree with bodies and blood-splattered walls everywhere and holding an AR-15 and flash his baby blues in with a bashful look and say, “I don’t know how this happened!”
From November 3 to January 6, he kept claiming that the election was stolen from him. He encouraged his supporters to protest, each time upping the temperature until we got the Insurrection. It’s pretty clear he incited the crowds and when the leaders of Congress and his Vice President were in trouble, refused to help. But he was still able to cow a number of Republican legislators.
There is still a groundswell of support for Trump and I will not be surprised to learn that he will run again in 2024 and could very well win the presidency again.
Mitch McConnell:
“Cocaine” Mitch has always been a crafty politician. So, I am left wondering what is his game with his speech today. It was strong in condemning President Trump, coming across as another House Manager.
And yet…
Why in the world did he express his feelings in such strong terms and yet not vote to convict? Was he trying to satisfy the pro-Trump forces? Is he planning on voting for a censure resolution? He wasn’t lying in how he felt. But it seemed like a severe lack of courage. He had the feeling, but he couldn’t turn that into conviction.
His choice was maddening because he came across as a poor leader. As Senate Minority Leader, he should have given that speech and then voted to convict, letting the chips fall where they may. But he couldn’t do that. Maybe he wants to hold on to his position. But he has to know that Trump’s people will still hate him for not totally bending the knee.
Senators like Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley are terrible for their support of the insurrectionists. But McConnell is terrible for a loss of nerve. I don’t know which one is worse.
The Democrats:
Their sins are not as great as others, but they do come in for criticism on two points. The first is that they should have chosen one Republican to be a House Manager. Would it have changed enough votes to convict the President? Probably not. But having all Democratic House Managers set this up as a partisan exercise. This played into the hands of Trump and his enablers. If he can set this up as the innocent Republican placed in front of Democratic wolves, he can win. It’s harder to do that if the team was even nominally bipartisan. My guess is that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other leaders wanted to stick it to the GOP. This was seen in partisan ways instead of seeing it for what it was, an issue that was of national importance. It was a lost opportunity.
The second problem was the caving on witnesses. The House Managers shocked everyone with a desire to call GOP Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler to testify. But Trump’s lawyers threatened to call every Democrat as a witness and Dems backed up. Trump and his minions tend to bluff, but more often than not the “good side” backs down thinking that Trump’s side is going to make good on his threat. Again, maybe the calling of witnesses wouldn’t change votes, but it might have painted a fuller picture of who Trump really is.
The House Managers:
They did a good job in helping people relive that day all over again through the use of video and by painting a mental picture through their speeches. While they didn’t win the day, they did paint the Republicans who voted to acquit to look like the cowards that they are. While I think the choice of not choosing a dissenting Republican as a manager was a mistake, the team that prosecuted the case did a good job.
The Republicans:
What more can be said? This party is tied to Donald Trump even though under his rule they have lost both Houses of Congress, the White House and thousands of voters. You have to wonder what if anything is a bridge too far when it comes to Trump. They show fealty to a man who will never show fealty to them. When they were hiding for their lives, he was basically in the White House doing the equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns. He didn’t care about them, but they were willing to sacrifice their reputations for him. They might have spared themselves from being censured by their state and local parties, but sooner or later they will pay for their lack of courage.
The Seven (and the Ten):
There was a Remnant of Republicans who did stand on principle; the seven Republicans Senators who voted to convict. During the first impeachment it was just Mitt Romney; he was joined by six others who saw the evidence and believed the former president was guilty. They along with the ten in the House that voted to impeach are the few lawmakers who refused to bow to Trump and they are heroes. Among the seven, I want to highlight two: Richard Burr of North Carolina and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. Both will retire in 2022 and realized they didn’t need to worry about their voters. It was good to see that after others like Ohio Senator Rob Portman, who is also retiring next year, still couldn’t gather any courage to vote to convict. He is a coward, but Burr and Toomey are the good guys.
American Democracy:
I don’t think we are going to see tanks in the streets tomorrow, but I do wonder where we are headed as a nation. Majorities of Republicans are seeing violence as an acceptable tool. Was the Insurrection just a one-off or a dress rehearsal for something darker and deadlier? There were a number of near misses where Senators, the Speaker or the Vice President could have been injured or killed. We may not be so lucky in the future.
In 1792, Alexander Hamilton wrote a letter where he was fending off the charge that he was a monarchist. In this quote he talks about what and who can subvert the democratic system:
The truth unquestionably is, that the only path to a subversion of the republican system of the Country is, by flattering the prejudices of the people, and exciting their jealousies and apprehensions, to throw affairs into confusion, and bring on civil commotion. Tired at length of anarchy, or want of government, they may take shelter in the arms of monarchy for repose and security.
Those then, who resist a confirmation of public order, are the true Artificers of monarchy—not that this is the intention of the generality of them. Yet it would not be difficult to lay the finger upon some of their party who may justly be suspected. When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits—despotic in his ordinary demeanor—known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty—when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity—to join in the cry of danger to liberty—to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion—to flatter and fall in with all the nonsense of the zealots of the day—It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may “ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.”
On January 6 we saw a president who sought to throw things into confusion. His acquittal might allow for him or another demagogue to “ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.”
We can’t say we weren’t warned.
This was a good post Dennis. Hamilton’s point certainly resonates about the fragility of what we have. The rump of the GOP is playing a very cynical and nihilistic game here. It’s all based on a false sense of invincibility, that no matter the defection, no matter the embrace of post-truth, that there will not be real world consequences. This is the kind of thing that a fat, complacent society allows and I’m not sure how it gets fixed. How do we learn to trust each other, and make the principled case for what we have rather than a cynical one? I wish I knew.Report
I think the way to fix it is to govern; not try and rise above partisan politics a la Obama or wallow in incompetence both genial (Bush II) and malevolent (Trump) but simply govern. Biden has, barely, a trifecta majority in government. If he uses that to the fullest extent and passes things that are popular with the voters without embarking on too many “out there” left wing adventures and operates the White House in a professional and typical manner he may well pull this out. If the economy rebounds, the tone remains muted and he keeps out of any foreign policy entanglements then in 2022 he could see a satisfied electorate endorse him with further victories and an enlarged majority.
If the GOP loses 3-4 2 year cycles in a row then finally the fever could break as they begin to try and change course to sniff out victory.Report
Agreed. The best thing the Biden admin could do for the country would be to quietly show that the federal state can function as a force that is a net positive for the average citizen. Right now too many believe it to be a deliverer of spoils, and justifiably so. It won’t be easy but if it can be done it will be both good for the country and a boon for the Democratic party.Report
On a policy level? Sure I agree. The problem (seems to me) is that politics is more than policy. As the old saying goes, it’s about winning hearts and minds. And my suspicion is that policy alone won’t get it done. Dems need to figure out right quick how to package their politics into something with a broader appeal or they’ll lose in ’22 despite doing good policy. I don’t have much hope they can do this.
On another level though, conservatives across the country are trying to pass a whole slew of new voter restriction laws that will make it harder for Democrats to win state-wide and national seats. That makes the “just do good policy and win elections” hurdle even higher to clear.Report
Part of the policy part, clearly, is fighting back on voting rights. That is, after all, something that exists in the policy realm.
Messaging certainly is important, but if they fish up the policy then it makes messaging a hundred times harder to manage. The Democratic coalition is a lot broader and more disparate than the GOP’s and the Dems don’t have a dedicated propaganda apparatus masquerading as a major news channel (or is it that Fox has a political arm masquerading as a major national political party?) so they can’t just try and message their way out of this.Report
The Democratic coalition is a lot broader and more disparate than the GOP’s and the Dems don’t have a dedicated propaganda apparatus masquerading as a major news channel
I agree on both points. But to me it means Dems have to be much MUCH better at messaging than they are right now to keep pace, let alone make inroads.Report
I don’t know if competition is possible strictly on the messaging level. The GOP is always going to be able to ‘message’ more motivationally to the right than the Dems will be able to ‘message’ to the left. They just can say anything and it flies. Hell, the Dems have basically two major bases with significant voter share and ideological heft who can barely stand each other. How are the Dems supposed to win a message game like that?
I still think their emphasis has to be on policy. They need to do what they can on messaging but policy is where they can bank in the actual wins that could help move voters.Report
IMHO, we have a bad habit FYIGM across the political divides. I’m not sure if that is a symptom, or the actual disease.Report
My read on Mitch:
Voting to convict meant other GOPers follow suit, Trump is convicted, and Dems get a massive win. You think he’s going to hand Dems a win?
But he also wants Trump gone and forgotten and erased from GOP memory. He may not get that but his speech was an attempt to move that way.
Trump was always his useful idiot but I think he wrongly believed he had control of all the strings. If Trump was still in office I think he may have acted differently realizing the dog was off the leash but for at least a few years, he can try to ignore Trump, take back control of the party, and return to his fave past time: obstructing Dems.
This looks bad to the politically attentive. But to GOPers of all stripes, there is egg on Dems’ face and that’s a big win. Moderate GOPers will applaud Mitch’s courage to “say the right thing” (ignoring he refused to do the right thing). Trumpers will gnash their teeth at his speech but they were likely opposed to Mitch no matter what. Now we see if he can reclaim the Trump wing.Report
Who knows what the truth is, but for what it’s worth, I saw an insider-ish perspective that was almost the total reverse of this — he thinks the politics of acquittal are horrible and would have loved to convict, but he didn’t have enough support among the GOP senators, and his voting for conviction would have made it difficult or impossible to continue as minority leader.Report
Totally possible. I’m offering merely quasi-informed speculation. The take you offer definitely casts Mitch in a better and smarter light. I’m not sure I’m inclined to think better of him, but I’ve learned to never question his political smarts and acumen.
Time will tell.Report
I’m inclined to believe this too. Mitch wants to retain his role as Leader, but he also wants to regain control of the Senate in ’22. After Liz Cheney and others got dunked on by their own state parties for voting against Trump the writing was pretty clearly on the wall. In one recent poll, 76% of Republican voters think the election was stolen. That’s the base McConnell can’t cross.Report
Seventy… six…???Report
Maybe they’re counting the people who see this sort of thing as bad instead of seeing it as good?Report
Try again, saying what you actually mean this time.Report
It comes down to what you mean by “stolen”.
If you think that “stolen” can be interpreted broadly enough to entail “underhanded gamesmanship in the middle of the year”, then “stolen” hinges on your willingness to say “hey, politics ain’t beanbag!”
If it means something narrow enough to only count stuff like “did the Russians hack the voting machines?”, then saying “it was stolen!” is something obviously only crazy people would say.Report
Well, I think it’s fair to say any reasonable definition of stolen includes illegality of some type.
Was anything described in that article illegal?Report
Given that I recall the arguments over whether Trump “stole” the election in 2016, I disagree with your assertion on its face.Report
“the young people are really, this is an incredible phenomenon, but they are attacked, successfully attacked to a much lesser extent by this pandemic, by this disease. This whatever they want to call it. You call it a germ, you can call it a flu, you can call it a virus. You know, you can call it many different names. I’m not sure anybody even knows what it is”Report
Not sure that works the way you want it to.
Some percentage of people thought the 2016 election was stolen. These people were wrong.
76% of Republicans think the 2020 election was stolen. These people are wrong.
What was the percentage of Dems who were wrong back in 2016?
People being wrong back then doesn’t suddenly make wrong people today right.Report
Some percentage of people thought the 2016 election was stolen. These people were wrong.
I’m not saying that these people were right.
I’m saying that these people were loud… and, very likely, using a loosey-goosey definition of “stolen”.Report
2016: Look, we know that the Russians hacked into state election systems so there’s a prima facie reason to be skeptical about the election results.
2020: Look, we know that Dominion’s voting machines were created by Hugo Chavez and the company is owned by socialists aligned with the anti-Trump Deep State globalists, so it’s obvious that the election was stolen.Report
So, just to be clear, you are 100% BSDI-ing this.
I expressed dismay at the idea that 76% of Republicans think the 2020 election was stolen. And your response has boiled down to, “Yea, but some Democrats thought the 2016 election was stolen.”
Well done.Report
Why is “you’re saying both sides do it!” considered a decent counter-argument to my pointing out that counter-defection is a reasonable play in an iterated game?Report
Well, you didn’t “point out that counter defection is a reasonable play in an iterated game.”
First, you linked to an article that I assume was meant to show that it’s reasonable to consider the 2020 election was stolen because it kinda sorts was.
When called on that, you insisted it really was kinda sorta stolen because some Dems said 2016 was stolen using a screwy definition of stolen.
I don’t think this is an iterated game. And I think it’s very bad that so many Republicans are wrong about the 2020 election. And I think it’s worse that so many are wrong now than it was when far fewer Dems were wrong then. And they WERE wrong.Report
Well, I think that we had better do a better job of policing when sloppy definitions are allowed and when keeping only the most precise definitions would be acceptable.
Because, lemme tell ya, this game is iterated.
And if both sides start doing something, pointing out that both sides are doing it won’t be an argument overcome by yelling “BSDI”.
(Hey, have you ever googled “BSDI”? How many pages until you get something that doesn’t have to do with software/computing? Do you think that that might be an indicator as to how good of a counterargument “BSDI” is?)Report
How good of a counter argument is actually BSDI-ing?
Again, I expressed dismay at 76% of Republicans thinking the 2020 election was stolen.
Your ultimate response was “BUT SOME DEMOCRATS THINK THE 2016 ELECTION WAS STOLEN!!!”
Which doesn’t make me any less dismayed. So how is that working for you?
If you want to discuss the definition of “stolen” used by Dems in 2016 as regarded that year’s election, maybe find those Dems and hash it out with them.Report
How’s this, then?
I share your dismay at 76% of Republicans thinking it was stolen. A “hey, maybe it’s not as bad as we might think” interpretation of that number is that they’re using the term “stolen” exceptionally broadly.
Like, broadly enough to encompass the article that I linked to (but they thought that the actions being talked about by the article were bad, actually, instead of obviously being good).
Now please understand that I’m not trying to hash out the definition with those Dems.
You and I both know that anybody who said anything adjacent to that were bad actors who shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Again. My point is not that they were *RIGHT*. It’s that they were *LOUD* and imprecise.
If I’m trying to get you to think anything, I’m trying to get you to think “huh… this ain’t coming out of nowhere…”Report
in 2016 Democrats concluded the election was “stolen” because 1) there was massive evidence of Russian interference, misinformation, and bad faith acting in support of Mr. Trump and 2) The electoral college result and the popular vote result were mismatched.
in 2020, MAGA Nation concluded that the Election was stolen because Donald Trump and his accomplices spent months saying it was so in a fact free environment.
One of these things is not like the other.Report
sighReport
“One of these things is not like the other.”
I’m sure you can point to all those federal prosecutions for all that massive interference and misinformation by those pesky Ruskies, yes?Report
@Damon – why yes I can.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/breakdown-indictments-cases-muellers-probe/story?id=61219489
Now, on the way out, Mr. Trump pardoned a good number of these folks for their roles, but accepting that pardon requires (I believe) actually admitting to guilty actions. So somewhere there’s a memo with all that juicy information that we will no doubt see in 20 years when its declassified.
@ Oscar – in case you haven’t noticed, American politics is ALL hyperbolics.Report
Yes, I have, which, really, REALLY, wants to make me disengage with it.Report
Incitements do not equal prosecutions, which, unless I missed something in my skim, hasn’t happened yet, so….
I will concede that it’s unlikely that the US will find/capture/extract these folks since they are on foreign soil–just like the Russians wont’ when do that to the guy’s the US employs to play the same game over there.Report
See how you put the word “stolen” in quotes up there? Because you recognize that Russian interference that influences legally cast ballots/voting is not actually stealing an election in the same way that official misconduct by election officials, or ballot stuffing, would be stealing an election.
Thus, Democrats played fast and loose with the definition of “stolen”, which was then iterated by the MAGA crowd into a subsequent fast and loose usage of the idea.
It’s a warning to avoid engaging in hyperbolics, especially if you firmly believe the opposition is prone to even more extreme hyperbolics, because they absolutely will take your ball and run with it.Report
MItch ALWAYS plays the long game. He knows that retaking the House in2 years requires Trump’s base, he knows that retaking the Senate in two years requires Trump’s base. He knows the “push” by major donors to dump Trump is theatrics performed for the masses. He knows that he can’t achieve his political objectives if democrats “win” and impeachment. He also knows that an indictment of Mr. Trump – which he all but begged the DoJ for – would be apolitical gift that would keep giving for years.
He’s playing a long game.
And Democrats STILL don’t get that.Report
The left created the social construct of the one ring to rule them all. The Dems will never be afraid of the ring, they will be afraid of who wears it. Moreso of who will destroy it. The storm and whirlwind are the result.Report