We’re in the “Inherit the Wind” phase of the Donald J. Trump post-presidency, which will play out mainly in the courts even as it continues to play out in the court of public opinion. New York is following the money, while Georgia focuses on the former president’s alleged muscling of officials to “find” votes for him in a state he lost. Then there are all those women and their sexual harassment charges.
All of this, however, is taking a backseat to the “trial of the century” — every important trial is always the trial of the century — in which House Managers, having impeached Trump, are attempting to convince Senate jurors that the former president is guilty of the sole count of the indictment, incitement of insurrection.
It’s a strange affair in which the outcome, acquittal by the too-afraid-to-cut-the-apron strings Republicans, is a foregone conclusion. And yet, despite this, or maybe because of it, the defense isn’t putting up much of a, well, defense. There has been praise for the opposition, which has put on a terrifically visceral show involving searing, never-before-seen footage of the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, shoutouts to senators and acknowledgements that Trump lost the election and will probably spend much of his post-presidency in a courtroom. And that’s been about it.
It’s not exactly Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow in “Inherit the Wind.” It’s more like those good character actors who play the losing lawyers against Tom Cruise/Matthew McConaughey/Kenneth Branagh in all those movies of John Grisham novels featuring sweaty bodies and ceiling fans whirring overhead. (I haven’t noticed any ceiling fans in the Senate chamber, but then I must confess I wasn’t really looking.)
Perhaps the best analysis of the proceedings that I’ve heard so far was from constitutional scholar and former 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judge Matthew McConnell, a President George W. Bush appointee, who said the House missed an opportunity by going for incitement of sedition instead of abuse of power. As he told “PBS NewHour” anchor Judy Woodruff Tuesday, Feb. 9:
“This is an impeachment — a trial of an impeachment, not a criminal trial for incitement. I doubt very much that Mr. Trump could be convicted of the crime of impeach — of incitement. But that's not what the Congress is limited to.
“The question here is whether Mr. Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors, which is a term of art which extends beyond mere violations of the criminal code to serious abuses of the office, and would include such things as attempting to persuade officers of the states to disregard election results after proper challenges to those election results had been properly pursued in the courts and rejected.
“It would include the failure of Mr. Trump to take any action to stop the riot when it was taking place, when he was in the very best position to do that. The president does have the duty, under the Constitution, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
Even if the decks were not stack against the Democrats because they need two-thirds of the Senate to convict and not the simple hair-slim majority they have, the fact remains that narcissists never explicitly approve anything. Rather, they get others to do their dirty work by needling and bullying them until they give in or are so inflamed that all hell breaks loose. This may sound like incitement but one man’s incitement is really another’s passive-aggression.
And so the Dems will make a noble stand — one for the history books — and Trump will be acquitted until we move on to the next trial of the century.