TRUMP II — THE EVIDENCE FOR CONVICTION
The LawFare Blog article referenced below is very worthwhile. The authors assume that in some fashion, a Federal Commission will be formed to investigate the January 6 Insurrection, akin to the 9/11 Commission. They pose areas of inquiry that such a commission might explore, including intelligence failures, social media culpability, possible involvement of foreign powers.
Apropos of our recent discussion of the Trump II impeachment trial, concerning Trump’s conduct, they say this:
What can investigators reasonably conclude regarding the personal responsibility of President Trump?
What made the Capitol assault distinct from other forms of political violence that America has witnessed was the direct role of the president, who called on people to come to Washington, promised it was going to be “wild,” and then gave an incendiary speech to the crowd before it stormed the Capitol. All of this followed months of egging supporters on in various ways. As the violence was unfolding, Trump initially rebuffed a request to mobilize the D.C. National Guard. The Senate’s coming impeachment trial will yield some form of political judgment of the former president’s behavior. To the extent there are criminal questions, those are the province of the Justice Department. But there’s also an important historical and analytical question — indeed, a moral one — that neither the Senate nor any criminal investigation can address: How should people understand the interaction of Trump’s behavior and that of the crowd? To what extent should analysts draw a clear or even indirect line of causation between how the then-president acted and what happened at the Capitol?
Toward this end, it is essential to develop a crystal-clear record concerning precisely what the president did in the run-up to the protest, as well as before and during the violence. A commission should ascertain everything possible about how Trump described his intentions to close aides and to those to whom he was speaking. He also reportedly made phone calls to senators during the riot. Understanding those conversations is important too.
The Senate impeachment managers have been talking about a very quick presentation, mostly consisting of a video timeline which, as we’ve all witnessed, can be pretty damning. However, Trump’s defenders have been quick to point to his “covering” verbiage, where he urges the crowd to attack peacefully.
There have been efforts to highlight the defense posed by some of the people who have been arrested, that they were only “following orders” from their president. Apart from the rich historical resonance, it’s really not their state of mind that matters in the impeachment trial.
What matters is what Trump believed they would do.
I hope that there will be evidence of the intelligence presented to Trump before his “rally.” Yesterday, the acting head of the Capitol Police acknowledged that they had been amply warned that the protest was likely to be violent. How could Trump plausibly not have the same knowledge?
As in Watergate, the issue is “What did the president know, and when did he know it?”
That question would include sitting back to enjoy the carnage on Capitol Hill, while watching from the White House — for hours before he lifted a very indifferent finger to call off his mob, telling them to go home but showering them with “love” and reiterating the “stolen election” litany.