By JOHN KANELIS / firstname.lastname@example.org
The men and women who will prosecute the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump have filed their legal brief in advance of that process.
It states, in part: “The Nation will indeed remember January 6, 2021 — and President Trump’s singular responsibility for that tragedy. It is impossible to imagine the events of January 6 occurring without President Trump creating a powder keg, striking a match, and then seeking personal advantage from the ensuing havoc.”
READ: House Impeachment Managers Outline Case Against Trump : NPR
My head and my heart are conflicting with each other as the nation prepares to witness this spectacle unfold. My heart desires a conviction, even though Donald Trump no longer is in office. He needs to be held accountable for inciting that horrifying riot.
My noggin tells me something different. It is that the House managers who will prosecute this case will be speaking to a “jury” that has made up its mind. Fifty Senate Democrats want to convict the former president; some of the 50 Republicans may join them, but not enough of them will cross that threshold to deliver a conviction.
The Constitution sets a high bar, requiring a two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict a president.
So, why is this trial different from the first trial that acquitted him on abuse of power and obstruction of justice? It is different because the crime Trump committed on Jan. 6 had a direct impact on the jurors, the senators who will be sitting in judgment.
Trump incited the rioting mob to march on Capitol Hill. The terrorists did as he stated. They stormed into the Capitol Building, where senators and House members were meeting to certify the results of the 2020 election. Senators and House members were sent scurrying; they feared for their very lives!
How in the name of sanity does someone give a pass to someone who incited that kind of violence when it could have resulted in catastrophe for those who will pass judgment? You cannot!
Trump has assembled a new defense team; the first one quit because of differences with the client over trial strategy. The new team will argue that the Senate lacks standing to try a president who isn’t in office. This layman believes that argument is so much crap!
This trial should be dramatically different from the first one. If there exist enough Republican senators with a sense of moral outrage over what happened on the very floor where they will hear this case, then there well could be a vastly different outcome.
Sadly, I fear that the cowards among the GOP caucus are going to win the day.