[Note: I started this post a few weeks back, but I did want to make certain points.]
I've been very clear where I've stood on Trump. As a libertarian, I intrinsically recoil from the tyranny of the political elite, the most prominent symbol being the imperial Presidency. I do not speak for other libertarians, many of whom reveled in Trump's supposed taking on the Deep State and shaking up foreign policy. But, at best, Trump sent out mixed messages, floating out ideas like withdrawals, only to see troops redeployed in the region, and hiring pro-interventionist neo-cons like Mattis and Bolton. He still put drone attacks overseas on steroids, set bombing records in Afghanistan, etc. How Ron Paul has implicitly supported Trump on his impeachments is incredulous: among other things, Ron Paul has been a harsh critic of the Federal Reserve's policies, and Trump, trying to get an economic pop to clinch his reelection, bashed the Fed for not following the EU countries in setting negative interest rates, as if a stronger currency ix a competitive disadvantage. Not to mention federal spending set a new record under Trump, and he added a third to the already unsustainable national debt. And "Tariff Man" was as corrupt and protectionist as it comes when it comes to the liberty principle of free trade. I've blogged on this topic before; my inference for this weird alliance of sorts is the principle the enemy of my enemy (the Left) is my friend.
But for me, there was nothing about his shtick I liked: his exaggerated notion of unenumerated powers, his attempt to use so-called emergency powers to work around a Congress unwilling to expand desired funding of his Southern border wall (which he promised his minions Mexico would pay for), his use of the veto to sustain Saudi Arabian genocide in Yemen, his assassination of Soleimani, his demand for personal fidelity from Comey, Sessions (for recusal over Russiagate) and others (including an attempt to fire Mueller), the abuse of pardon powers (e.g., Stone and Bannon), his constant attack on businesses (Apple, Carrier, Ford, Nabisco, etc.) which made decisions that he saw inconsistent with the intent of his policies (e.g., business operations in Mexico, encryption software on cellphones, etc.), his attempt to use Ukraine aid for extorting an investigation of his political rival, Biden, his attempted intervention on Bergdahl, which I felt put due process and Bergdahl's rights at risk, his threats to cut off federal funding to schools which didn't comply with his preferred in-person school opening policy during the pandemic, his opposition to COVID-19 testing, which I found insanely counterproductive policy during a pandemic--and dozens of other things. I have over 4 years of critical posts and tweets on Trump.
There's very little Trump got right here; maybe he didn't start any new wars, but there were times I was worried about what he would do to Iran and North Korea, and he seemed to be flirting with regime change in Venezuela. He refused to touch entitlements and actually wanted to make things worse by floating a payroll tax holiday. Some modest regulatory reforms and some good court picks. But he did do away with hard-won sequesters to get more bloated funding for the Defense Department
But let's turn to the question of the Jan. 6 riot. I'm not going to into the details of alleged electoral fraud. Trump bitterly opposed state election mail balloting, largely an artifact of the ongoing pandemic, from the get-go as intrinsically fraudulent, repeatedly refused in advance of the election to abide by election results (presumably anything short of his electoral victory). The final cumulative vote total showed Biden winning 51.3% to 46.9%, by more than 7 million votes. Of course, the popular vote isn't relevant, but Trump lost the electoral college vote this time with essentially the same total (not counting faithless electors) as he won by in 2016, this time losing PA, WI, and MI with red states AZ and GA flipping to Biden, Of the other tight states Biden held on to Nevada and Trump won North Carolina. I should point out here that the results in question were consistent with pre-election polling. On a percentage basis from 2016, Trump improved less than 1 point (from 46.1 to 46.9), while Biden improved Clinton's position by just over 3 points. Trump had never gotten over the 50% approval rating his entire tenure in office, and the economy not only tanked by over 3 points last year, but Trump's handling of the pandemic was rated low. .Most of the outstanding votes on Election Night were from historically highly Democratic precincts., while most Republican votes were on Election Day. The reason Trump fought mail ballots tooth and nail is because he knew their results would favor Biden. Furthermore, the Democrats had won back the House during the 2018 mid-terms, a leading indicator that Trump was in trouble hearing into 2020.
Was there evidence of fraud? I'm not convinced anything of the size or scope that could have materially affected the election. Even McClanahan, a historian whose videos I often embed and who preferred Trump to Biden, admits widespread fraud (e.g., vote-buying) is essentially unprovable, There were a few instances of initial vote counts needing to be revised, but these had more to do with human errors in reporting than fraud. Yes, people can start rumors but often with little evidence behind them. More to the point, the Trump election lawyers lost nearly all of their 61 court cases on merit or standing [add the recent failed Wisconsin appeal to SCOTUS); their only victory being a small one about Pennsylvania voters not being allowed to cure their ballots (proof of ID) in a 3-day grace period after the election, which affected an immaterial small number of votes. In fact, this one Trump legal victory had nothing to do with Trump's repetitious election fraud allegations, all of which were rejected for lack of evidence and other grounds. (The uncured ballots, likely Biden mail ballots, were never included in state totals.).
From my standpoint, it's a straightforward application of Ockham's razor. For example, the RCP average of Pennsylvania general election polls showed Biden with a 1.2 point advantage. The actual vote count was remarkable consistent. I don't need an exogenous factor to explain Biden's victory. Remember that Trump won PA in 2016 by nearly half of Biden's 80,555 winning margin. Keep in mind I opposed the election of either Biden or Trump; I don't have a dog in this fight; I'm going by the evidence I see.
Now mainstream media like CNN are obsessed with Trump repetitiously complaining to his minions over a "stolen election", complaining of fraud. I sometimes wonder if CNN hosts and reporters get a bonus for how often they pair Trump with "lies" and/or remind viewers every 5 minutes how experts or courts dispute what he says. CNN blurs the line between news and opinion, even propaganda just as much as FNC.
But what was the rationale between CNN and other progressive sources with their obsession with Trump "lies"? I think they were trying to use it to explain what motivated the rioters' actions in the Capitol attack. Now I do think there is some evidence to support that Trump intended for the crowd to confront and perhaps intimidate Congress from ratifying Biden's election. It's clear he identified himself as one who would join them on the way to the Capitol. It's less clear what he intended once they got to the Capitol. He was deliberately vague, perhaps for the sake of plausible deniability. It's not clear that he was responsible for the inadequate security at the Capitol, at least in the early stages of the attack. The Capitol police turned down National Guard advance offers of reinforcements, despite warnings on social media and other sources of possible unrest on Jan. 6. Trump can also point to innumerable pleas for law and order and supporting the police.
I've made it clear that Trump is far from blameless; as I've written before, this is a guy who told his rallygoers elsewhere, if they roughed up a protester, he would cover their legal bills; he didn't want police to be "too nice" to those apprehended; some of his followers assaulted a homeless Latino man; he infamously told his violence-prone Proud Boys supporters to "stand by"; he's said he could kill someone on Fifth Avenue, and his minions would not abandon their support. He and his former chief of staff, in fact, later claimed that they tried to offer 10,000 National Guardsmen for Jan.6 because of the concern over crowd size. So if he had concerns, he didn't cancel the rally? By all accounts, he was reluctant to address his supporters once the Capitol was breached, even shrugging off a call from House Minority Leader McCarthy trying to blame the breach on Antifa leftists.
I have some issues with the Dem House rush to impeachment and due process concerns. Personally, I would have tried him on a more appropriate charge of dereliction of duty. There is no excuse from failing to protect the Congress from exercising its constitutional duty, even if it would la day ikely come to a decision Trump personally disagreed with. There is no question Jan. 6 was likely to be a day of unrest; there were violent outbursts, e.g., just weeks earlier around the time of the state electoral votes. But obviously if they were going to "stop the steal" , Jan. 6 was the target date, and it was no accident for Trump to schedule his rally just before Congress was to meet to vote on the results. Some might quibble that the FBI warning came too late to prevent the attack. But rumors had been spreading for a month of a confrontation aimed at stopping the vote, even as Biden officially clinched an electoral vote majority. Trump had been pushing for a large rally; prudence and due diligence called for enhanced support. Ultimately Trump bears responsibility for preventing an assault on USG property.
Now there are differences between a criminal and an impeachment trial and I was not impressed with the defense's argument that Trump's rally speech would not have met SCOTUS/legal standards for criminal inciting a riot charges. The Congress, not SCOTUS, decides impeachment matters. I do think there was a rush to impeach and political reasons for that; Trump had a right to due process; there should have been more vetted evidence and witnesses. The largely party-line view led the impression that the impeachment was largely partisan, despite 10 GOP votes for conviction.
As for the Senate trial, the Senate failed to convict by the supermajority required, although it was the second-closest vote in history with a majority and 8 GOP votes. The Senate Republicans largely argued on process grounds, i.e., Trump, now no longer in office, was constitutionally ineligible to be tried for impeachment. I personally am convinced otherwise, because I think Presidential misconduct is subject to impeachment each and every day of his term(s) in office, and there have been impeachment trials for other types of former public servants. But I think Washpo surveyed a handful of constitutional experts and a couple backed the ineligibility argument, so I can't say it's unreasonable, but I think it provided an opportunistic fig leaf to avoid alienating politically active Trumpkins. I do think the Dems missed their chance to call witnesses (I believe related to the reported Trump/McCarthy phone call on Jan 6).
So, was the impeachment worth it? Well, the likelihood of conviction wasn't good in either trial. And I think the partisan tone of the impeachments didn't help. I don't see the impeachment votes backfiring on politicians. I would argue that, yes, impeachment serves as a deterrent to future POTUS misconduct, and I think the Capitol breach killed any chance of a Trump political comeback. But it should not be standard operating procedure, and you should choose your battles carefully. History may prove me wrong.
