Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

New Yorker: The Trial of Donald Trump Must Tell the Full Story of the Capitol Insurrection

One of the most quoted lines in American nonfiction is Joan Didion’s “we tell ourselves stories in order to live.” It’s the first sentence of “The White Album,” an essay in which Didion recounts some facts, some images, and some reporting notes from 1968. Didion felt that she had lost the ability to string the stuff of stories into narratives, and, as a result, life itself seemed to drain away. She was plagued with symptoms that were variously interpreted as neurological or psychiatric—or, after the fact, by Didion herself, as a normal reaction to 1968, which could have given anyone a case of vertigo and nausea. Outwardly, she appeared to function, except when she didn’t, when her mind was besieged by disconnected phrases and an overwhelming sense of existential dread, apparently insurmountable for being well founded.

Nations, in this way, are like people: they cannot survive without a story. A common sense of past and future, a broad agreement on organizational principles, trust that your neighbors near and distant share a general understanding of reality and current events—all of these are necessary for any kind of politics to function. American politics right now are like Didion’s life in 1968: a jumble of fragments, a thin veneer of functionality, and an abyss of well-founded existential fear. At this moment, we are deciding whether we will try to forge a coherent story.

During the first impeachment of Donald Trump, in November, 2019, I wrote that it was impossible to observe the hearings without first choosing between two non-overlapping views of reality, two different stories. In one story, Trump had repeatedly abused power and was finally facing impeachment for a particularly egregious incident of abuse. In the other, Democrats had been trying to get Trump for years and had finally latched on to an inconsequential incident, staging a witch trial to get rid of the President. This week, the Republican Party is still closing ranks around the President, with a mere ten exceptions in the House. Wednesday’s impeachment hearing, like the first, was legible only through one of two frames: either Trump organized an attempted coup and was being impeached for it, or, as Representative Jim Jordan, of Ohio, claimed in his speech on the House floor, “It’s always been about getting the President no matter what. It’s an obsession.”

Although several Republican representatives acknowledged that the violence at the Capitol on January 6th was terrifying, condemnable, and un-American, some of them compared it to Black Lives Matter protests, or what they imagined the Black Lives Matter protests to be. “Make no mistake, the left in America has incited far more political violence than the right,” Representative Matt Gaetz, of Florida, said. “For months, our cities burned, police stations burned, our businesses were shattered, and they said nothing.” By this logic, since no one was impeached for, say, the property damage sustained in Minneapolis last year during the protests of George Floyd’s death at the hands of the police, no one should be impeached for inciting chaos at the Capitol.

President-elect Joe Biden released a statement several hours after the House voted on the motion to impeach. This timing seemed designed to signal that impeachment is not one of Biden’s top priorities. “I hope that the Senate leadership will find a way to deal with their Constitutional responsibilities on impeachment while also working on the other urgent business of this nation,” the statement read. Over all, Biden has distanced himself from the proceedings, underscoring that he sees his job as getting his Cabinet seated, speeding up vaccine distribution, and passing his economic-relief package. On Thursday, barely more than twenty-four hours after the impeachment vote, Biden gave a speech in which he made no mention of it, or Trump, or January 6th.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 10January 16, 2021 11:06 AM

Most Democrats in the House have based their calls for impeachment on the claim that Trump is a “clear and present danger” and must be removed from office immediately. Framed this way, the process does seem to lose its urgency after Trump has moved out of the White House. The backers of impeachment will then shift their focus on the imperative to prevent Trump from ever running for office again. As malignant as Trump is, though, can the task of banning him from federal office be as urgent as legislative measures that will have a material impact on the lives and health of millions of Americans?

As long as the proceedings are narrowly focussed on Trump, the case for urgency will grow only harder to make. Instead, the goal of the Senate trial should be defined as finding and telling the truth about the insurrection. My colleague Jill Lepore has taken up the question of what we ought to call the events of January 6th. “Any formulation is a non-starter if it diminishes the culpability of people in positions of power who perpetrated the lie that the election was stolen,” she wrote. The task before the Senate, then, ought to be to produce the first draft of those history books.

Too often, we think that trials, whether in the courts or in the Senate, exist to mete out punishment—that they need to establish the facts only to the extent necessary to decide on the charges brought before them and determine the appropriate penalties. But, as of next week, whether Trump should be removed from office will no longer be an operative question. A Senate trial focussed only on Trump may not hold the attention of the media, the public, or even the lawmakers themselves. And if the trial in the Senate sputters out, the story of January 6th will be told in dozens or even hundreds of separate trials, in federal courts located in different states. Different judges will be deciding whether different defendants were guilty of trespassing, damaging federal property, assaulting officers and journalists, and taking part in an insurrection. It will not be the job of any of these judges to paint a comprehensive picture of what happened on January 6th, what led up to the insurrection, and what made it possible.

by Anonymousreply 1January 16, 2021 6:26 AM

In the absence of such a story, the task of preventing future insurrections will fall to the F.B.I. and the uniformed services. Security in the Capitol and the capital will be permanently increased; domestic surveillance will grow in scale. In other words, the U.S. will respond to this crisis the way that it has responded to other crises: with securitization and the curtailment of political rights. The grave term “domestic terrorist,” which has gathered much traction in the past week, paves the way for just such a response. But the insurrectionists were not terrorists. Their primary purpose was not to inspire terror in the general population; their purpose was to prevent the elected President from taking office. Unlike most terrorists, they acted directly upon their target, going to the seat of political power in the United States and attempting to seize power, following what they perceived as orders from the President of the United States.

Reframing the Senate trial of Trump as a truth-finding mission rather than a punitive undertaking requires a voice more authoritative than that of any one senator or even a majority of the Senate. It requires the voice of President-elect Biden. Such a proposition runs against all of Biden’s political instincts: the idea that he should focus on his own Administration and his legislative agenda; the tradition of moving on in the name of healing; the knowledge that getting things done in the Senate is the process of counting votes, negotiating, making concessions; the desire to get results in the most efficient way possible.

An attempt to tell the story of the insurrection—and the story of the Trump Presidency, which made it possible—would not be efficient. It would have to be sprawling, ambitious, grand. It would require the President-elect and senators to use their full political and intellectual muscle. This needs to be done not because it is necessary to punish and banish Trump, but because this country cannot rely only on snatches of stories that float haphazardly through non-overlapping realities. Biden certainly fears that insisting on a deep and broad Senate trial would further alienate Trump’s supporters. But if impeachment is allowed to fizzle, or even to proceed in the most efficient way possible, that will guarantee nearly half of Americans will watch the process without having to challenge the notion that the Democrats are simply out to get Trump. Can they be pulled in by a more detailed, more truthful, and undoubtedly more troubling story? We cannot know—but without telling a story we cannot live.

by Anonymousreply 2January 16, 2021 6:26 AM

"It’s always been about getting the President no matter what. It’s an obsession.”

Sociopaths, psychopaths, narcissists... never understand why you don't "get" them. They think they are wonderful, fascinating individuals who are simply misunderstood. Normal, healthy people see them for the monsters they are- and seek to rid the world of them- for the safety of all of us.

And I believe it's time now to get rid of Jordan. He's a baby Trump.

by Anonymousreply 3January 16, 2021 6:45 AM

TL;DR

by Anonymousreply 4January 16, 2021 6:50 AM

The insurrection was horrible, and it’s obviously not over yet, whatever that means. But make no mistake, the *real* story of the Trump administration *is* the Russian collusion.

by Anonymousreply 5January 16, 2021 7:10 AM

[quote]As malignant as Trump is, though, can the task of banning him from federal office be as urgent as legislative measures that will have a material impact on the lives and health of millions of Americans?

YES. For god's sake, what kind of question is this?

Well written I guess but the framing is ridiculous. The 1968-Didion reference was all about reducing the coup to a dismissive "we've been through this before" narrative. From there, it's all about the both-sideisms, uncritically repeating what bad-faith GOP actors have said, and then using those bad-faith claims as a jumping-off point for how we shouldn't even try to punish Trump for what he's done, it's just not important anymore.

It continues by trying to claim that we should therefore use the trial as a fact-finding mission instead, but previous Biden-bashing in the op-ed had already laid down their ultimate conclusion: Biden needs to support this fact-finding mission and he won't because he's a wussy wuss, so we might as well forget the whole thing.

Not surprising to learn where this op-ed writer is from. You can take the journalist out of Russia, but you can't take the Russian out of the journalist. They're one of the many countries who have leftist groups who don't care much about anything bad that the far right does, but instead focus all their energies on taking down liberals, who they have deemed the real enemy.

This is just another dirtbag leftist Dem-bashing essay, prettied up to look like political punditry.

by Anonymousreply 6January 16, 2021 8:11 AM

Uh, R6, "this journalist" is Masha Gessen, the pre-eminient interpreter of Putin's Russia for US audiences, and one of the clearest and most persistent voices on the danger of Trump's authoritarianism to US small-d democracy.

by Anonymousreply 7January 16, 2021 8:51 AM

I know who they are.

Gessen repeated Matt Gaetz's lie that "Antifa burned down cities" and that no one was charged, saying in response

[quote]By this logic, since no one was impeached for, say, the property damage sustained in Minneapolis last year during the protests of George Floyd’s death at the hands of the police, no one should be impeached for inciting chaos at the Capitol.

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. An impeachment IS a charge. It's an indictment. People HAVE been indicted for the property damage in Minneapolis: specifically, Boogaloo Bois who are in federal custody right now for killing cops and burning police buildings.

Not only does Gessen not bother to mention Gaetz was lying, they apparently don't know that an impeachment is the equivalent to a criminal charge. I mean, that's me being polite; the true explanation is probably that Gessen knows, they just hoped their readers don't know, so they could fall back on lazy and inaccurate writing.

It's even more bizarre when you realize they never pick this narrative thread back up again. It's obviously only there to lead into their examples of how Biden obviously doesn't care to punish Trump. It's rhetorically linking Gaetz's lies to defend Trump with Biden's lack of mention of the insurrection in his Thursday speech.

Again, I have to ask myself, why is Gessen trying to make it seem like both sides want the same thing -- no punishment for Trump -- but are just going about it differently?

Or how about this:

[quote]Biden certainly fears that insisting on a deep and broad Senate trial would further alienate Trump’s supporters.

Does he? Do we know this? No, of course not. Gessen is assuming. For all we know, Biden knows he didn't have the support of Trumpsters before and he's not worried about alienating them right now. But Gessen wants us to think this is the truth, because it furthers the argument that Biden won't do anything about Trump.

And then the conclusion:

[quote]if impeachment is allowed to fizzle, or even to proceed in the most efficient way possible, that will guarantee nearly half of Americans will watch the process without having to challenge the notion that the Democrats are simply out to get Trump

"Democrats, you better not impeach, because then 50% of all Americans -- this is scientific fact! -- will know that you just wanted to get Trump for no real reason!"

Come on. This whole thing is bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 8January 16, 2021 9:17 AM

"But make no mistake, the *real* story of the Trump administration *is* the Russian collusion."

I don't disagree with statement, but story is complex & hard to follow and let's face it - most people in this country don't have the intelligence or the attention span to follow it.

I think the Capitol Insurrection is easier to understand, there are visual images supporting what happened and really *did* impact all Americans. I think the Russian collusion is too easy for people to write off as "well, a lot of leaders make dirty deals with other countries to achieve some ends" rather than see it for what it really is.

But whatever the case, I do agree that some sort of public hearing has to occur outline the damage he's done to this country, the people and our institutions. There will be a percentage of people too dumb or stubborn, but like Nixon, most people will eventually come around.

by Anonymousreply 9January 16, 2021 9:55 AM

[quote]This is just another dirtbag leftist Dem-bashing essay

I see "dirtbag leftist" used a lot around here. Is it all the same troll? R6 is unhinged.

"The Left" is the new boogeyman for our trolls.

by Anonymousreply 10January 16, 2021 11:06 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!