Blog No. 278. Baghdad on the Potomac: Trump’s Legacy and America’s Disgrace

My previous blog described January 6 with its insurrection at the Capitol as a day of infamy. So it was, and the infamy continues.

On January 6 and every day since, we have witnessed horrific videos taken during the invasion of the Capitol. The most recent, and perhaps most riveting, contribution to this genre was provided by Luke Mogelson of the New Yorker and his photographer, Balazs Gardi. If readers have not watched this footage, they are urged to do so, and it is available here. It vividly shows the moments when the deplorable became the despicable.

While the videos of January 6 were shocking and disgusting, the subsequent photos showing preparations for the inauguration are as depressing as anything I can recall in my lifetime. The shame of January 6 seems like a toxic cloud hovering over the Capitol as barriers are erected and thousands of troops and police are deployed. The defenses of the Capitol and the surrounding area exceed even those provided for our beleaguered embassy in Baghdad. At the same time, every state in the country has also found it necessary to follow suit, fortifying their own capitols with physical barriers and law enforcement personnel, sometimes augmented by national guard troops. Can this really be America, the beacon of democracy where the peaceful transfer of power is a hallmark of our national honor?

January 20 may come and go peacefully in Washington and elsewhere, and I pray that will be the case. But if it is peaceful, this will not mean that the precautions were unwarranted or an overreaction. On the contrary, it would have been foolhardy to ignore the warnings by federal and state law enforcement agencies that violent protests could be anticipated. Would the absence of violence mean that after January 20 our political life will return to some sort of pre-Trump normal–divided, perhaps bitterly so, but non-violent? I would like to think so, but I doubt it. An NBC poll provided a chilling statistic:

In the NBC News survey, nearly a third of GOP voters surveyed — 28 percent — said Trump’s words and actions related to the violence at the Capitol reinforced their vote for Trump

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/poll-trump-approval-remains-stable-republicans-unmoved-after-capitol-violence-n1254457

While 28% of Republicans may be a relatively small proportion of the overall electorate, it is large enough to be a troublesome source for encouraging or tolerating violence in our political system.

A major unknown, of course, is what role Trump himself will play in the next few years. He has been impeached by the House and trial by the Senate lies ahead, although at the moment the timing is uncertain. I have expressed reservations about impeachment, relating to its timing and effectiveness, and I still have those reservations. Nevertheless, if the Senate proceeds to a trial of Trump, his conviction would be not only eminently justified but commanded by the country’s interest.

I do not know what kind of case Congressman Jeremy Raskin and his impeachment team will present in the Senate, but it should include video of not only January 6 but also of the violence, if any, on January 20 at the inauguration or at state capitols. It is all a product of Trump’s big lie, that he won the election in a landslide and Biden “stole” it. It is pure sophistry to parse Trump’s words at the January 6 rally and insist that he did not explicitly call for violence. His bogus claims of fraud, repeated incessantly after the election, stoked the Republican furnace of resentment, and his April 6 rally lit the match. Indeed, many of the Capitol invaders have insisted that they believed they were following Trump’s orders. Even if January 20 is quiet, Senators must ask themselves if they really want to work in a Baghdad on the Potomac.

If testimony is taken, should the witnesses include Trump himself? Since impeachment is not a criminal trial, he could arguably be subpoenaed. Trump could still claim his Fifth Amendment privilege and decline to testify, but perhaps he would accept the opportunity to present his case. Other significant witnesses might include Rudy Giuliani, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, all of whom appeared at or promoted the January 6 rally.

Conviction by the Senate will require the votes of 17 Republicans to reach the required threshold of two thirds. Is that doable? It may be doubtful, given the support that Trump still holds among his base, largely the same base that Republican Senators will rely on for their own reelection. On the other hand, if Republicans can summon the courage to vote for a conviction, they may find that Trump’s ability to punish them politically is less than they fear. After all, even if Trump escapes conviction, he will be quite busy facing a staggering array of civil and criminal charges in state and federal courts.

Of course, with or without prodding from Trump, his Trump supporters may seek revenge against any Republicans who vote to convict Trump. There is already talk of retribution for Republicans who voted to certify Biden’s election, and Trump loyalists would surely try to take similar action against Republicans who voted to convict. Who will come to the support of these courageous Republicans? Support may be hard to come by within the Republican Party and Democrats may be appreciative but find it awkward to contribute to a Republican. I therefore propose establishment of an independent political action committee to raise and provide political contributions to recognize their valor. The PAC might be named the “January 6 Fund” and it would honor these officials for setting aside party loyalty to support and defend the Constitution. The Washington Post reported today that “the 147 Republican lawmakers who opposed certification of the presidential election this month have lost the support of 20 of their largest corporate backers,” and I can think of no better way of redirecting those funds.