Donald Trump will probably be acquitted of

inciting an insurrection
The evidence is damning but the outcome in little doubt

DONALD TRUMP accounts for half of all presidential impeachments. He holds the unique
distinction of having been impeached twice, compared with once each for Andrew Jackson
and Bill Clinton. None has been convicted at trial (the constitution dictates that the House
impeaches a president and the Senate tries him). Mr Trump’s acquittal took place almost
exactly one year ago; his second trial begins on February 9th. The evidence against him is
perhaps even more damning this time than last, but his hold on his party is just as strong, and
there is little reason to expect a different outcome.

Mr Trump’s previous impeachment trial centred on whistleblower testimony, a complex

network of diplomats in multiple countries and a mountain of evidence. This one hinges on
something that happened in plain view: the invasion of the Capitol on January 6th by Trump
supporters intent on stopping Congress from certifying the electoral victory of Joe Biden in
November. Congress does this after every presidential election, and it is usually a dull, pro-
forma affair. This year, however, supporters of the defeated president stormed the legislature,
resulting in the deaths of five people, including a police officer. Well over 100 people have
been arrested. At issue in this week’s trial is the extent to which Mr Trump bears
responsibility for the seditious violence enacted by his supporters.

The House approved a single article of impeachment against Mr Trump on January 13th. Ten
Republicans joined the chamber’s Democrats in approval, making it the most bipartisan
presidential impeachment vote in American history. That article, and a brief filed by the nine
Democrats prosecuting the case in this week’s trial, argue that Mr Trump incited and is
responsible for the insurrection.

He spent months claiming that he, not Mr Biden, won last November’s election, which was
“stolen” from him. Multiple courts across America found no evidence to sustain this claim,
yet he continued making it—and leaning on elected officials in battleground states to violate
state law and declare him the winner. Some Republican officials who upheld the law received
death threats from Trump supporters; Gabriel Sterling, a Republican from Georgia, warned,
“someone’s going to get killed” because of Mr Trump’s incendiary rhetoric. Mr Trump did
not temper it. He told his supporters to attend a “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there,
will be wild!”

The crowd at that rally, the Democrats’ brief charges, “included many who were armed, angry
and dangerous.” Before Mr Trump addressed it, Rudy Giuliani, his erratic lawyer, called for
“trial by combat”, and Donald Trump junior warned Republicans who might vote to certify
the election results—as they were legally bound to do—“we’re coming for you.” Mr Trump
appeared, telling the crowd to “fight like hell”. Then, the Democrats’ brief charges, he “aimed
them straight at the Capitol, declaring, ‘You’ll never take back our country with weakness.
You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.’” This amounted to incitement,
Democrats argue in their impeachment resolution, which “threatened the integrity of the
Democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperilled a coequal
branch of power”—all of which justifies impeachment.
Idáig tart a fordítandó rész. A cikk a továbbiakban folytatódik.

(The brief filed by Mr Trump’s attorneys offers two main counter-arguments. The first is that
the proceeding is unconstitutional because Mr Trump is no longer in office. This argument
rests on a hyperliteral reading of the constitution’s impeachment sections, which state in part,
“judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office and
disqualification to hold and enjoy an office of honour.” The “and”, Mr Trump’s lawyers
argue, renders current office-holding a precondition of adjudication—a claim at odds with
history: the Senate tried (and acquitted) William Belknap, a secretary of war, on August 1st
1876, four months after he left office.

The second counter-argument is that Mr Trump’s speech to the January 6th rally, and his
claims that the election was “stolen” from him, are both protected by the free-speech clause of
the First Amendment. His lawyers stop short of endorsing his claim of having won the
election, but argue that “insufficient evidence exists upon which a reasonable jurist could
conclude” that his statements were either true or false. Of course, plenty of presidential
statements could be both protected by the First Amendment and potentially impeachable. A
president who said, for instance, that “China should invade America by way of the west coast
ports; I’ve stood the army down” would probably not be long for office. This argument
resembles Mr Trump during his time in office in failing to recognise that a president’s words
matter more than those of an ordinary citizen. It is one thing for a radio-show caller to claim
the election was stolen and urge a march on the Capitol; it is quite another for a president with
the full weight of his office behind him to do so.

The trial will probably be quick, perhaps a couple of weeks. The outcome is in little doubt.
Late last month, all but five Republican senators backed a motion by Rand Paul of Kentucky
asserting that the proceeding is unconstitutional. The evidence is not complex, and the Biden
administration is keen to get the Senate back to confirming judges and voting on its legislative
agenda. Mr Trump’s lawyers declined an invitation for their client to testify in his own
defence. Little would be gained by his appearance. His lawyers’ arguments will probably
provide Republicans with enough justification to acquit.)

Forrás: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/02/08/donald-trump-will-probably-be-
acquitted-of-inciting-an-insurrection

Glosszárium
EN HU Forrás/megjegyzés