What I Don’t Understand About the Impeachment Indictment

The single impeachment allegation is inciting insurrection. Trump’s case is that, several times, he asked his followers to be peaceful.

This allows his supporters to argue that responsibility for the insurrection is solely that of the rioters, not Trump. This ends up in a quarrel about the true intent and impact of Trump’s conduct.

What I do not understand, is why there was not a second allegation of criminal breach of duty for watching the invasion of the Capitol Building on TV for a couple of hours, while failing to activate the National Guard, or take any measure to protect the Capitol and protect Congress.

In fact, I hear nothing in the arguments about this; yet the notion of a U.S. president passively watching an insurrection on TV (with a bowl of nachos?) is so outrageous, that it is impossible to imagine even a fig-leaf of a legal defense.

Comments | 3

  • Actually

    I submitted this on Sunday but it got posted today. In today’s session, the impeachment managers made compelling arguments about Trump ignoring pleas to activate the National Guard.

    • Trump's Lawyer

      …has argued that anything Trump did or did not do after the mob invaded the Capitol is irrelevant, because the only charge is incitement to riot, which would have occurred before the riot started.

      Once again, I ask why the Democrats did not include a second allegation: Dereliction of duty — a shameful failure to fulfill his duty to protect Congress?

  • Yes, but

    Today, the defense has pointed out that the word “fight” is used by many people.

    So, I guess that settles it… : )

Leave a Reply