We have legal proceedings to do that. We even call juries "the trier of fact," because that's their only job: to establish the facts of a case put before them. Juries exist purely to resolve critical matters of fact, and that's why judges sit at trial to determine that all evidence allowed under the applicable rules of evidence is heard (ideally, obviously; de jure if not de facto).There's no way to resolve these critical matters of fact without witness testimony. https://t.co/jI1pzWQK3a
— Christian Vanderbrouk (@UrbanAchievr) February 8, 2021
Maybe in legal proceedings, without Trump as an indicted or even unindicted co-conspirator (or merely the empty chair in all proceedings), critical matters of fact will be resolved. Where they won't be resolved is in a trial in the Senate.
GOP Senators will do everything they can to be sure that doesn't happen, including but not limited to doing their best Al Pacinos, screaming into every microphone on Capitol Hill that this entire trial is out of order!
Don't put so much weight into this proceeding; it won't bear it. These matters will be resolved in the courts, and in the voting booths of America. Frankly, anything narrower than that will be dismissed by one side or the other. Hell, even the election of the President is still being challenged (Q adherents think Trump will re-take the office in March). Trump is one problem. Tamping down that insanity, is another.
Gonna have to walk AND chew gum on these matters.
He's never going to be convicted by two-thirds, that absurdity put there at the start means there never will be removal of the most criminal president by impeachment, I've held for thirty years that it is a Constitutional fantasy that the rules make impossible to happen. The Founders were idiots in many ways. They were amateurs, after all, and pretty much looking for ways to rig in their own advantage, some of the most promient imagined themselves as president, after all, several were, more imagined themselves as doing it. Hamilton is, I'm convinced, hoping that Washington would anoint him as his successor but by the time Adams left office had established himself as one of the most dangerous men in the country.
ReplyDeleteThe Senate trial will decide whether or not there is an official ban on Trump holding federal office, that is it. Trump is only interested in the formal possibility of him running again as a money making scam and to exercise power and influence. A number of Republicans want to run for president and it would be convenient for them if he were banned from doing it but they won't dare to ban him from doing it, relying on Democrats and maybe a few Republicans to do that for them.
I don't think the vitriol of the Adams/Jefferson campaign arose sui generis that soon after the Constitution was ratified, so, yeah, they wanted to be sure they could be POTUS and they couldn't be removed easily.
DeleteOne of the great myths of the "Founding Fathers" is that they didn't want political parties and designed a system that didn't need them. Bollocks. Political parties arose the minute Washington stepped down, and again, don't tell me they sprang full blown from the brow of Adams or Jefferson. What they didn't want was "partisan politics" to upset the apple cart too soon. That's not unwise when your goal is governance, but the idea that politics became partisan just about the time the current crop of pundits came along is one of the most egregious myths of American politics; and one of the most enduring.
Hell, we've even got precedents for MTG, and I don't mean Tailgunner Joe (she's not McCarthy). Wacky conspiracy theories are as American as violence and cherry pie. So is bitter partisan politics.
I agree with your second paragraph especially; I just doubt twelve more Republicans (assuming the five who didn't think the trial unconstitutional also decide Trump should be punished for the first time in U.S. history) will join the Democrats (assuming they stand as one) when it comes to the vote.
The irony is Trump wants to take over the GOP or start a third party. This is gonna end up being like the break up of a rock band. Nobody has to work for the band, but who owns the brand? Most electoral laws are written in the favor of the two major parties; but who "is" the party? That could be an interesting issue as to who gets easier ballot access where.
I wonder who will be Yoko.
ReplyDelete