Conservative view of Capitol riot | Guest Opinion

In response to the Herald’s invitation to share conservative views to their Opinion page, I offer some comments (as a Trump-disliking conservative) related to the recent attack on our Capitol, and the subsequent efforts to convict Donald Trump on the charge of “Incitement of Insurrection”.

 I think that Trump’s speech on January 6 was pretty typical for him. It contained considerable bragging, posturing, and misinformation; however, I don’t feel that it urged anybody to take violent action. I think that the media coverage of that speech was one-sided (as usual); specifically, I have seen no mention of the fact that he said “--- everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”.

 I think that the attack on the Capitol Building was inexcusable, terrible, ugly, etc. But, according to my understanding of the usual use of the word, it was not an “insurrection”.

 I think that the move to impeach Trump was driven by partisan politics, and personal dislikes. The only constitutionally explicit penalty for being “Impeached for, and Conviction of” a crime is removal from office; and the processes of impeachment and conviction could not possibly have been completed by the time his term expired.

 I also suspect that the word “insurrection” was chosen for use in the Article of Impeachment because the 14th Amendment to the Constitution defines people who can be prevented from holding any office if they have “engaged in insurrection”. By going this route, the Democrats appear to hope to nullify a political rival.

 I think that the meaning of the word “insurrection” should be critical in the consideration of impeachment and conviction. Unfortunately, there are widely different definitions of this word in different dictionaries; one is “a violent uprising against an authority or government”, and another is “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence.” To me, the attack on the Capitol would indeed qualify to be an “insurrection” according to this first definition, but would not qualify according to the second definition. I also feel that, according to this first definition, we have had hundreds of “insurrections” in this country in recent months, as people have demonstrated in favor of, or opposed to, various things — but nobody has called them “insurrections”.

 I wonder if those who are trying to convict Trump so that they can apply sanctions under the 14th Amendment are using the same definition as was used by the writers (and ratifiers) of that amendment (over 150 years ago, right after the end of our Civil War). I also wonder if “incitement of insurrection” (the title of the Article of Impeachment) should be considered to be “engaged in insurrection” (the words in the 14 Amendment).

 I see a contradiction between the Senate’s effort to try and convict Trump as “the President” and the fact that the Chief Justice is not presiding at the trial because Trump is not “the President”.

 I do not feel that Rep. Dan Newhouse (or anyone else) should have based his impeachment vote on any Trump action or inaction that was not specified in the Article of Impeachment. I believe that ordinary jurors are instructed to consider only the alleged crime in their assessment of whether the person is guilty of that allegation.

 I do agree with Senator Chuck Schumer’s comment that it “makes no sense” that a president could commit a crime and then avoid impeachment by resigning, but wonder how long is the list of other hypothetical events that our Constitution might be ill-equipped to deal with. I strongly believe that actions to prevent such things should be taken within constraints of the Constitution, and I don’t see that happening here.

This story was originally published February 9, 2021 at 3:37 PM with the headline " Conservative view of Capitol riot | Guest Opinion."