Impeachment Trial Reflects the Prioritization of Political Ambition Over Justice
Former President Donald Trump was acquitted by the United States Senate in the second impeachment trial stemming from his actions while in office. Source.
Throughout his tumultuous presidency, Donald Trump continuously boasted about his immunity from the rule of law and exemption from consequences, once famously stating in 2016 that he could “stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody” without losing any voters. Apparently in 2021, after inciting a violent insurrection that attempted to subvert the democratic process, targeted his Vice President, and killed five people, Trump’s statement was proven correct.
On February 13th, Donald Trump was acquitted on charges for “incitement of insurrection” in the very chamber where said insurrection took place — by those whom the insurrection targeted. The final vote in the Senate was 43 not guilty to 57 guilty, 10 votes short of the requisite 67 guilty votes needed to convict.
Prior to the trial, the legal defense team for the former President went through several iterations, with the majority of his initial team, lawyers Butch Bowers, Deborah Barbier, Greg Harris, Johnny Gasser, and Josh Howard, parting from the Trump team days before the trial was set to begin. As the trial commenced on February 9th, Trump’s representation consisted of David I. Schoen, Bruce L. Castor Jr., and Michael van der Veen, with the notable exclusion of the face of Trump’s recent legal endeavors, Rudy Giuliani.
In presenting their arguments, the defense only took 3 hours in comparison to the 10 utilized by the prosecution. The arguments of Trump’s defense centered around three central themes: attacking the trial itself, questioning the motivations of the prosecution, and claiming that Trump’s incendiary rhetoric was protected under the First Amendment, which, when considered collectively, presented little to no actual evidence in the former president’s favor, especially compared to the extensive body of evidence presented by the prosecution. Particularly notable in the trial were statements made by attorney Michael van der Veen, the most recent addition to Trump’s legal representation team.
Van de Veen bizarrely called the trial “constitutional cancel culture,” which is diversionary, trivializing, alternative phrasing for “facing the consequences of one’s actions,” and serves as an apparently apt description for the prosecution of the instigator who attempted to violently seize the seat and symbol of American democracy. Additionally, van der Veen claimed "You can't incite what was already going to happen," in reference to the president’s immediate role in the violence on January 6th, in an attempt to completely ignore the months of incendiary rants and myriad attempts to delegitimize the 2020 election that preceded the insurrection attempt, rants that many of the rioters themselves quoted as direct instructions for their actions. As rioter Garret Hill puts it, "I believed I was following the instructions of former President Trump."
These extreme statements with dubious accuracy were indicative of the entirety of the defense’s argument. Rather than present any concrete, contrary evidence, they focused on attacking their opponents, a style very reminiscent of Trump himself. Nevertheless, in a move indicative of partisan loyalties and potential for political gain surpassing decency, common sense, and basic morality, the vast majority of Republican senators acquitted Trump. Only 7 Republican senators voted to convict the former president, of which only one is up for reelection in the next electoral cycle.
The lack of substance of the defense’s argument in combination with the outcome of the trial illustrates the unwillingness of many senators to hold Trump accountable for his actions. Such a reality was revealed by the stunning hypocrisy of Mitch McConnell, the former majority leader, who, in a speech after the trial’s conclusion, stated that "Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day," yet still voted to acquit. While the future of the Republican Party and Trump himself is still under debate, the lack of action and integrity from many of the country’s governmental representatives presents an enormous obstacle to the amelioration of the political division that the country faces.