The Impeachment Trial

I understand the Democrats made a lot of use of video from the Capitol riot while making their case for removal.  It should go without saying, but apparently it doesn't:  no amount of video evidence of the damage done by rioters counts at all against Trump.  The gist of the case is to show that Trump incited the riot, and even if the rioters burned down the Capitol and everyone in it, it would not have the slightest bearing on whether he did or not.

They have also used evidence from some of the rioters who said that they were following Trump's instructions.  From what I have read here, those instructions consisted of marching to the Capitol.  Well, there is no doubt that Trump encouraged his supporters to do that.  It should be needless to say, but, again, here it is:  marching to the Capitol is not the same as attacking the Capitol.  If it were, practically every Democrat who ever led a protest would be guilty.  It doesn't even matter if rioters thought Trump wanted them to attack the Capitol, because that speaks more to their state of mind than his.  It only matters if Trump spoke words that could reasonably be interpreted as instructions to attack the Capitol, which he unambiguously did not.  The fact that several of the rioters are currently facing trial and would like to shift blame from themselves onto someone else should certainly factor into any evaluation of the rioters' state of mind.  (One lawyer said "that her client had taken Trump's 'bait.'")  The other question is, how did so many people march on the Capitol and not attack it, nor think that Trump wanted them to do so, and were not even aware that attacks were taking place?

All this speaks to the expectations of Democrats, who were, indeed, convinced that Trump was going to attempt violence, and who therefore are able to see violence in anything he says, even things that speak of peaceful protest.  But this has nothing to do with the actual situation on January 6; Democrats have been expecting some extraordinary anti-Constitutional act by Trump since before he even took office.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Science and Philosophy, Part I: Hume and Popper

I've been listening to a lecture series on philosophy recently, and, even though I haven't gotten past the Greeks yet, it has reminded me of a number of issues that trouble me about science. I want to take the opportunity to express my concerns here. Along the way, I will probably oversimplify philosophy a great deal -- not on purpose, but rather because I have only a simplistic understanding of it. I welcome responses to clear up my misconceptions. One of my issues with science is the famous idea of Karl Popper that it can never establish positive claims, only falsify wrong ones. The history of this goes back to David Hume, the 18th century Scottish sceptic. He shook up the philosophical world by claiming that science could never prove anything through induction -- that is, drawing conclusions about physical laws based on observations. The classic illustration is the sun's rising. Even though the sun has risen every day for our whole lives, and for countless human l
Read more

Country Music

I noticed a long time ago that there isn't much difference between the sound of country music and rock music nowadays. If I'm surfing my radio and I come to a station playing jazz, classical, or rap, I recognize it right away; but if I come to a country or rock station, I often can't tell which it is until the song is half over. Country songs often have screaming guitars that would fit equally well in a hard rock song, and only a minority have a recognizably country instrument such as a fiddle or a banjo. All the same, no one could listen to a country music station for more than a few minutes without realizing that it is definitely not a rock station. What are the differences? There are some stylistic differences. Country songs are more likely to have a boogey beat or certain western-sounding bass lines. They also tend to be more formulaic: if you can't predict how a country song ends, you probably don't listen to much country music. But those things aren'
Read more

What Are Pronouns For?

 Here's what I don't get about people defining their own pronouns (and I use "their" advisedly):  If I am talking to you, your pronoun is "you."  No one disputes that.  If I am talking about you to another person, the pronoun I use to reference you is none of your business.  I am in a conversation with someone else; you are not a party to it, and you are not entitled to impose rules on it.  Ideally, you will never know what we say -- but if you do find out, it doesn't matter because the pronouns I used were for my convenience, not for your feelings.  Heck, I may not even have met you, may not have any idea what you identify as or even what sex you really are (as sometimes happens when people have names like "Leslie" or "Ashley" that get used for both sexes, or foreign names that I am unfamiliar with).  So mind your business and there will be nothing to get offended about.
Read more