Jack Doppelt
Feb. 12, 2021
I can appreciate that. If you don’t hear or see any of the statements or videos that clearly connected a kaleidoscope of dots leading up to Jan. 6, you too might think that there’s no difference between heightened, insensitive, angry or inflammatory rhetoric in political campaigns, in demonstrations or in the media on the one hand, and what happened on Jan. 6, on the other hand.
As the Trump impeachment trial team introduced its defense today of the former president for “inciting insurrection" by encouraging the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, maybe the GOP senators will discard their earplugs and blinders. The sensory protectors must be annoying to have to resort to. They apparently need them so they don’t hear or see what they can then deny without facing up to how utterly shameless and hypocritical they are.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who was one of the most vocal supporters of Trump’s incendiary “Stop the Steal” narrative and one of the 44 GOP senators who voted that the trial is unconstitutional because Trump is no longer president, said publicly yesterday that Trump shouldn’t be convicted because the House managers had not come "remotely close" to demonstrating that Trump's conduct on Jan. 6 constituted incitement.
 |
| Kaleidoscope of dots [Image: Part of Mandelbrot set - Smily Kaleidoscope- Creative Commons |
“The right” mass produces the earplugs and blinders. Ken Starr fulfilled his consulting gig on Fox News in the morning. He characterized The House manager’s case as political theater and prepared us to anticipate that Trump’s defense team is “going to run the ‘First Amendment-free speech’ play.”
Starr is a former Appeals Court judge who turned legal hit man for the right when he led the impeachment prosecution of Bill Clinton in 1998 and became one of Trump’s legal team in Trump’s 2020 impeachment trial. He was also one of an even more impressive legal team in 2008 that represented Jeffrey Epstein, the politically connected billionaire and sex offender. In a revealing interview on Fox News in July 2019, Starr called it “nonsense” that any of the abused women whose cases were compromised by a cozy non-prosecution agreement with Epstein were bowled over by the influential lawyers. Starr would know, he boasted. “I was in the room.” [where it happened, with homage to Lin-Manuel Miranda and Hamilton]. Alexander Acosta, who was the then-U.S. Attorney who cut that deal, later stepped down as Trump’s Secretary of Labor because of the incident. As Starr put it, by resigning, “[Acosta] took one for the team.” A federal judge saw it differently. In Feb. 2019, Judge Kenneth Marra rebuked the phalanx of big name attorneys, including Starr, who had written Acosta at the time that it would be “wholly inappropriate” for the U.S. Attorney’s office to issue victim notification letters to the women, though failing to do so violated Florida law.
With Starr pointing me to the play action, I listened closely to Trump’s defense team and focused on their videos. They summoned plenty of rhetoric by the likes of Maxine Waters, Kamala Harris, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders. All Democrats, of course. Similar rhetoric can be invoked of Republicans. Of course, speech and rhetoric can be heated.
Trump’s defense presentation was a testament, as were some of the House managers videos, to harnessing the wonders of digital video searching and to the craft of selective editing. The word “fight” repeated hundreds of time…by Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris alone. How’s that different, the point was, from Trump saying the words “fight” 20 times in the paroxysm of the Jan. 6 Capitol riots.
Language like “fight like hell” and “don’t give up” and “you have to get your people to fight,” “punch him in the face,” “fights may need to be in Congress, in the courts and in the streets,” and “I want to tell you…you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.”
The only two soundbites in the whole series of montages that pinpricked me were: CNN's Chris Cuomo: “Show me where protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful.”
Chuck Schumer: “The patriots were protesters.”
Once Trump’s defense rested, we were left where we expected we’d be. It takes 67 votes to impeach. The votes are not there. Trump will be acquitted. Despite the expected and caricatured “he says (without listening to her), she says (without listening to him)” nature of our political landscape, the call about whether he should be convicted is a tough call, with the 1st Amendment guarding the door.
Did Trump intend to incite his MAGAs to commit “imminent lawless action” on Jan. 6 specifically and were those actions likely to happen then and there? As I wrote the other day, that’s where the virtues and ambiguities of the videos before and on Jan. 6 matter. We shouldn’t be punishing people or impeaching a president for speaking passionately. But Trump’s speech and actions on Jan. 6 were singularly unique.
As Justice William Brennan wrote more than 50 years ago in New York Times v. Sullivan, which is one of America’s proudest exports to the world, “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” That freedom is defining of America. It is not absolute. People forfeit that freedom by perjuring themselves, by convincing co-conspirators to break the knees of mob victims, or by intending to incite people to commit “imminent lawless action” that is likely to happen then and there.
Did Trump forfeit that freedom? Because if he did, he cannot avail himself of a First Amendment protection, and he should be impeached and not allowed the privilege to seek public office in the nation where I live.
Maybe Bruce Springsteen put it best in “Dancing in the Dark”: “You can’t start a fire without a spark.”
I believe with all the conviction of someone who sees before me not only a dangerous, unrepentant, charismatic demagogue who kicked down the 1st Amendment door, but almost half a Congress who’ve traded in their political pedigree as the Grand Old Party for membership in Gimme Only Partisans. They preserved the acronym.
Please tell me, though, that there is hope that the 70 millions of my fellow citizens who were sycophantic believers in a con man no longer have use for earplugs and blinders.
#####
No comments:
Post a Comment