When someone is elected to the United States Senate he or she takes an oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: (my emphasis) So help me God.
When a President is impeached the House of Representatives act as prosecutors and the 100 Senators act as Jury. As such they take an additional oath
I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of . . . . . . ., now pending, I will do impartial justice (my emphasis) according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God.
That 43 Republican Senators chose to ignore the evidence of their ears, eyes and reason and so failed to find Donald Trump guilty of “inciting insurrection” declares to the World that they regard these oaths as no more that pompous mumbo jumbo. Their perceived self-interest (presumably they think voting to find Trump guilty would will damage their chances of re-election) takes precedence over their solemn assertions of probity.
Certainly since 1945, and probably longer, the US has been regarded as the leader of the “free world”. It was a flawed model (Vietnam, racism) but nevertheless a beacon of hope for “less happier lands,” a country where reason, decency and honour (or honor) were prized and would eventually prevail. The UK liked to think it held that position in earlier times.
Now that the leaders of the US have demonstrated that these ideals are just empty rhetoric and the government of the UK is in the hands of serial liars wreaking damage on its citizens to serve their own selfish ideologies, where is the idealistic young Russian, Chinese, Brazilian, Hungarian to look for a model where integrity is valued and fairness and the rule of law prevail?
France perhaps, Germany since 1945, Scandinavia, New Zealand?
There are now more authoritarian regimes in the world than liberal democracies. The Whig style “onward march of progress” which we’ve assumed was in the ascendency since 1945 is now on the back foot.
Those 43 US senators have done a grave dis-service not just to America (Trump will now loom menacingly and debase their politics during Biden’s first term a least) but to our hopes for a liberal democratic world.
Our leader is shamed.
That 43 Republican Senators chose to ignore the evidence of their ears, eyes and reason and so failed to find Donald Trump guilty of “inciting insurrection” declares to the World that they regard these oaths as no more that pompous mumbo jumbo.
ReplyDeleteIf you think that it's so self-evident that trump is guilty then presumably you think that the case against him rises to a criminal standard of proof. In that case would you care to explain why he is not been put to a criminal trial (where he could be properly punished with imprisonment as such a crime would deserve, rather than the merely administrative sanctions available to the impeachment process)?
[of course in reality everybody understands that impeachment is a purely political affair and has never in the history of the rebel American republic had anything to do with law or facts]
Of course it's political. Someone who incites his followers to riot in order to overturn the result of a legitimate election is unfit to hold public office. Hence impeachment will either remove him from that office or, if he's no longer in it, prevent him from holding that or any other political office again.
DeleteI'm no expert on US law but believe that in the UK you can't be tried twice for the same offence. What about other aspects of that offence? If I were a relative of one of the five people killed in the the riot I'd be asking my lawyers about the possibilities of private or public prosecutions for murder or manslaughter.
Of course it's political. Someone who incites his followers to riot in order to overturn the result of a legitimate election is unfit to hold public office. Hence impeachment will either remove him from that office or, if he's no longer in it, prevent him from holding that or any other political office again.
DeleteAnd did what Trump said rise to the legal standard of criminal incitement? I gather there's some doubt on that point and that he may (whether by skill or, as I suspect, dumb luck) have managed to avoid actually explicitly saying anything that would legally count as incitement.
In which case it could join the not-exactly-short list of crimes that Trump intended to do while in office but was too incompetent to actually commit. However as I understand it there's no offence of 'attempted incitement' to charge him with.
I'm no expert on US law but believe that in the UK you can't be tried twice for the same offence.
What has that to do with it? Trump hasn't been tried for incitement to violence in a court of law, so there's absolutely nothing stopping him being charged, if the authorities think they can make a case. It's established that a President can't be charged while they're in office, but they can be tried after they've left office for crims committed while in office (or else what was Ford pardoning Nixon for?).
So if it's so obvious that Trump is guilty, why isn't he on trial in a court of law?
What about other aspects of that offence? If I were a relative of one of the five people killed in the the riot I'd be asking my lawyers about the possibilities of private or public prosecutions for murder or manslaughter.
That's certainly another option. The burden of proof would be lower, though of course there'd be the additional challenge of proving that there was no break in the chain of causation. I'd be very interested in seeing that court case.
So would I.
Delete