On Tuesday, the United States Senate convenes in the same building that was stormed a month ago in a violent attack that left five people dead and terrorized those caught up in it.

Senators will gather to weigh accountability for the events of that day, and – perhaps of greater long-term significance to American politics – whether they will set a precedent that allows a President to threaten a co-equal branch of government with the aim of overturning a legal election.

On the day of the attack, John Cassidy wrote at the New Yorker: “This is precisely what Trump wanted. It was Trump who repeatedly called on his supporters to travel to Washington, D.C., for the joint session, after his efforts to overturn the election through the courts had failed. It was Trump who repeatedly told those same supporters that the election had been stolen, and that the result needed to be reversed. And it was Trump who ignored reports that some of his supporters were planning to go far beyond the peaceful protest that he claimed to be calling for. Online forums popular with Trump supporters were “filled with violent rhetoric directed at a wide range of perceived enemies,” the Anti-Defamation League warned.”

Now, the bill has come due.

Opinion polls show a narrow majority of Americans support convicting former President Trump on the single charge of inciting insurrection, and then barring him from again holding elected office. 

We are in unique territory. Former President Trump, of course, is the first President in history to be impeached twice, and the polls indicate a slightly greater support for his conviction now than at his previous impeachment last year. 

Trump’s legal team filed its pre-trial brief on Monday and, as Vox reports, it “constructs an alternative reality” where the former President accepts no responsibility for the chain of events that culminated in the attack on the Capitol on January 6th. Their defence strategy at this stage appears to be two-pronged: to argue that the trial itself is unconstitutional, since the former President is no longer in office, and, if that fails, to rely on the fact that most Republican Senators have already indicated they are unlikely to find him guilty.

Senators – who are also, don’t forget, technically eyewitnesses to the storming of the Capitol – have taken an oath to consider the evidence impartially, but this is not a traditional “trial” in any common understanding. The Senate gets to set its own rules for the conduct of proceedings and it is not even clear whether witnesses will be called

Trump himself was invited to testify in his own defence but declined.

There will certainly be elements of political theatre in the coming days. 

What’s likely to happen first on Tuesday is a four-hour re-litigation of the constitutionality of the trial itself, before moving to the substance of the charges via a procedural vote. There will then will be debate for the rest of this week and likely into next, ahead of a possible verdict.

Democratic impeachment managers are understood to be planning a video-heavy presentation that is likely to be emotionally charged, and aims to lay out Trump’s involvement with the January 6th “Stop The Steal” rally and recap his efforts to overturn the election in the 77 days leading up to that day.  That may be bolstered by the dramatic representation of rally participants’ cell phone data.

Meanwhile the FBI’s arrests of insurrectionists continues – already there have been more than 200 arrests of participants in the riot and each day more evidence accumulates, often by self-incrimination via social media. And several of those arrested have claimed that they were acting at the urging of their President. 

There has, however, been slow progress in building a case around the murder of Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick.

Also at issue is the idea that the President was slow to call a halt to the riot while his supporters were laying siege to the Capitol building, instead being focused on getting Senators inside to overturn the election.  All of that will make up the case the impeachment managers will put before the Senate.

On the record 

It would certainly be a surprise if Trump were to be convicted, but there is a mission among Democrats that the events of that shameful day and their backstory, laying out what they argue is Trump’s responsibility for them, need to be put on the record. 

The timing is politically inconvenient for the new Biden administration as it seeks to concentrate on moving forward with Covid relief and economic assistance – particularly since there are signs of strain within the Democratic caucus itself – and the President will be keen to counter-programme events in the Senate so impeachment doesn’t distract public attention from his recovery agenda.  

While there is undoubtedly a significant number of Americans who still believe the election fraud lie that Donald Trump created for them, Congressional Republicans like Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul and House leader Kevin McCarthy also want to “move on” – but for an altogether different reason – they want to avoid antagonizing Trump’s supporters

As longtime Republican strategist Matt Mackowiak told Reuters: “We can’t win without Trump’s base; the question is, can we hold onto Trump’s base without Trump?”

Senate Republicans have never held Trump accountable. Their acquittal of him a year ago likely made these current proceedings inevitable. Now, with it unlikely that Trump will be barred from seeking office again, it will – again – fall to the American people to deliver a verdict in the 2022 mid-terms.  

Whatever the outcome, however, the future of the Republican party in a post-Trump world is going to be fascinating to watch as different factions, some more tethered to reality than others, jostle for power.

A broader structural problem for Republicans, though, could lie in fundraising and the extent to which corporate donors in particular will want to distance themselves from an openly insurrectionist party. 

When the impeachment process ends, there is unlikely to be anything approaching accountability for Donald Trump. Millions of people will continue to support and sustain him and that dynamic will inevitably play into their approach to politics – and dictate how politicians appeal to them – in the coming election cycle. 

From Rocky Ground to Middle Ground?

Usually one of the most-watched aspects of the Super Bowl is the commercials – and particularly so when the game itself fails to grab the attention. Sunday was one of those situations and the most talked-about spot was for Jeep, who managed to snare one of the biggest of big name ad-holdouts, Bruce Springsteen.

The two-minute ad is beautifully shot by Thom Zimny and feels like an out-take of one of the linking vignettes from his recent Western Stars performance movie, which placed Springsteen as a rugged individualist cowboy loner, conquering personal crises with stoicism and resolve. 

But Springsteen’s message here of finding a “middle” road in our deeply divided society left many people as cold as it looks in the ad.

Chris Richards writes at The Washington Post, “As the camera hops between images of bridges, trains, flags and horses, solemn streaks of steel guitar float behind Springsteen’s unity monologue as if quietly mourning his integrity. And this is sad. Springsteen was famous for refusing to cave to advertisers across his 48-year career, but now here he is on our Super Bowl screens, squinting into the middle distance like a parody of himself.”

For all the symbolism of a message about bringing people together, Springsteen is the only person in the ad. There are no images of other Americans, just one man on remote roads and at a Christian chapel representing the “middle”; showing perhaps that advertisers understand exactly how tenuous the notion of a shared America is right now. They’re understandably cautious of how to represent a divided nation and can’t take the risk of doing so in a way that would alienate one half of it.

Nostalgia for the sort of America Jeep is selling here depends on each individual’s view of it – and not all of those views will include an idea of community or interdependence. For the four years of his single Presidential term, Donald Trump acted only for the benefit of those who supported him, preying on what divides us rather than appealing to what we have in common.  Forgetting that, even in the cause of reconciliation, is little short of insulting, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t aspire to it.

As David Corn tweeted, “a ‘Reunited States of America’ is a good idea. But for that, there must be accountability, tolerance, and honesty.”

The folks in the “middle,” – however we understand that term anymore in modern politics – undoubtedly want to move on to more important things; Lord knows we have enough challenges, but they also require justice. As Andrew Desiderio writes at Politico, plenty of people, both Democrats and Republicans, want rid of Trump, they just differ on the means.

This unity-themed ad undoubtedly offers a powerful image. But surely its power lies in that it gives us something to aim for, rather than something we can achieve overnight just by wanting it.

***

See Also:

From The Big Lie To A Great Undoing

Party of One

Commemorating The Capitol


Also published on Medium.