I did not find the second day of the Democrats' presentation as gripping as the first,* and for a surprising reason. Not enough logos! If the jurisdictional arguments showed that pure logos unmixed with ethos and pathos is really dull, this day showed that appeals to ethos and pathos if not backed by specific fact become too abstract to be meaningful and degenerate into vapid platitudes. On the other hand, Raskin, who mostly sat out on the first day of presentation, had his opportunity to shine.
The day began with Diana DeGette showing how the insurrectionist clearly believed they were authorized by Trump and following his commands, with numerous quotes to social media and news stories. She also said something I did not know -- that when Trump told the rioters to go home, half-hearted as his video was, they actually did begin going home. The shaman in particular told the others that they had won and could leave.
Raskin then gave an excellent presentation showing Trump's prior incitement and condonation of violations with clear specifics. Violence at his 2016 rallies that he encouraged. Applauding Gianforte for beating up a reporter. Encouraging two instances of Michigan militias storming the Michigan capitol and refusing to condemn a plot to kidnap the governor. All of this, he argued, showed that Trump had a longstanding practice of encouraging violence and should have foreseen that this, too, would turn violent.
Ted Lieu followed, first pointing out that Trump did not condemn the assault on the Capitol, and then to quote numerous Republican officials condemning his actions. I found this argument to authority rather less impressive. DeGette, Cicilline, and Castro then followed with discussions of the harm caused by the attacks, which seemed rather self-evident. Castro's discussion of the damage to US standing particularly tended to descend to abstraction and platitude. The most effective, I thought, was Cicilline giving actual personal accounts by people in the besieged Capitol.
Finally, the impeachment managers went on to rebut Trump's lawyers' legal arguments. Raskin got his second opportunity that day to shine. He pointed out that things that are constitutionally protected free speech in a private citizen, such as advocating secession or totalitarianism,** can be grounds to fire a public employee, and certainly would be a violation of oath of office and impeachable in a President. He also pointed out that inciting a riot is not constitutionally protected free speech.
Lieu addressed the issue of due process and Raskin discussed what high crimes and misdemeanors are. Both made the point that an impeachment is not the same as a criminal trial and that different standards apply. Nerguse had his best moment of the trial summing up the evidence to argue that (1) violence was foreseeable, (2) Trump encouraged violence, and (3) Trump acted willfully. And Raskin gave an emotional closing speech that descended to platitude.
When i look up the full presentation on You Tube, You Tube also offers highlights. So if I wanted to offer highlights, what would I include?
From the first day it would be easy. I would have Raskin's warning that saying former presidents cannot be impeached would create a "January exception" to accountability, even though the transition is the most dangerous time. And what would that look like? Followed by his video of the insurrection. No more would be needed. If absolutely necessary, I might include some of the historical examples of ex-officials being impeached.
Day two would be hard. Everything was so good! It is important for context to include Trump's pre-election claims that he could only lose by fraud, his post-election claims, and his attempts to use the machinery of government to overturn the results. As mentioned before, I would not put it in that order, but would put pre-election claims of fraud; post-election use of lawsuits, pressure on states, pressure on Congress, and pressure on Pence to overturn the outcome; and then inciting followers by falsely claiming fraud. These could probably be edited to show just highlights. Stacey Plaskett's account of all the signs of impending violence I would include in its entirety. If necessary, the whole account of the siege could probably be omitted in favor of the twelve-minute montage. Or you should do shorten the account, just to give a general ideal of the sequence of events.
The final day might be reduced simply to Raskin's two tour de force speeches, about Trump's past association with violence, and the limits of the First Amendment. Nerguse's summing-up of the evidence was also strong. I would have to look at transcripts at length to decide exactly how to edit. Maybe someday I will look at highlights and see what I think.
Next up: The defense presentation.
________________________________________________________
*The first day of the impeachment trial was taken with arguments over jurisdiction. So day 2 of the impeachment trial was the the first day of presentation and day 3 of the trial was the second day of presentation.
**Raskin also mentioned taking an oath of allegiance to a hostile foreign power. Is that legal?
No comments:
Post a Comment