Impeachment 2: Connecting the Dots

Today, the House Impeachment Managers began arguing their case against D. J. Trump for inciting the Jan. 6th riot/insurrection at the US Capitol. They organized their case around three themes:

1. Provocation

2. The Attack

3. Harm

The strength of their case will be judge by the Senate since it is a trial for which they are the jury. But the Impeachment case will also be judged by the media, both its news and commercial entities, and of course it will be judged by the public. The outcome of the Senate is already known. The final vote will be an acquittal by failing to reach the 67-vote margin to convict. The media will divide along differing views for differing reasons; and the public will likewise split over this issue. Your own judgement will obviously be based on those factors that guide your assessment of the case presented, or perhaps simply based on the political party to which you are aligned or to which you are committed to beyond any thought.

The ultimate judgement will be left to history, to the record that we leave behind. How that judgement turns out may take decades. Over time the divided sides and various judgements will be viewed through the lens of a population that is less committed to one side but to how the record illuminates how we, as a democratic society, lived and fulfilled our American values and principles. It is in that light, leaving our record for posterity, that we ought to ask: “Did the Impeachment Managers miss anything in their case?” Was there any dimension, facet or perspective that would have increased the illumination that they should have shown upon the issue? The reasons this is a relevant question are that if the information/evidence that Senators are to weigh their decisions upon (at least in theory) should be as complete and comprehensive as possible. The decision that history will make needs as much of the context and information that can be had so as to cast the impeachment effort in the brightest light that shows every speck, wrinkle or scar.

And indeed, there does appears to be an oversight, a gap, or even an error in relevant information that properly and adequately frames their case. Perhaps it will surface in the hours/days to come, but what if it is not? There are clues to what is being missed in their current case, but if not adequately noted, emphasized, and specifically called out this information may slip by the attention of Senators, journalists and the public. Such oversight is not in America’s interests nor does it serve to protect our rights, values and principles. The dimension being overlooked relates to a disregard for threats to the government, Congress and the nation, an act of criminal negligence. The overlooked dimension: Ignoring National Security threats not just unreacted to but disregarded.

The House Impeachment Team has stated that Trump has promoted the 2020 Election was ‘stolen’ since the Nov. 3rd election. Coincident with the repeated and recurring claims to his supporters about the “Steal” there were threats made to numerous individuals consistent with Trump’s messaging. The FBI and other law enforcement entities reported on these threats and in some instances responded to situations which related to them. The threats continued from the election up to the Capital rally and have continued since. There were even reports about threats related to the Jan. 6th rally prior to that day. The FBI reported that there were groups preparing to bring weapons to the rally and to even engage in acts against Congress. Not only did Trump call for the rally, but his campaign funded organizing efforts. There are lots of threads here, if one were to pick at one or two does the illusion of willful ignorance to the possibility of violence unravel even more? Did the FBI or anyone in the Department of Homeland Security notify anyone in the White House about these threats and risks? Was President Trump’s Secret Service security detail alerted to the risk of potential individuals/groups that would be arriving with weapons? The Impeachment Team should have relevant information concerning what our National Security entities knew before Jan. 6th, what information & briefings were provided to the White House (and to whom), and whether the President had been appraised of these threats, risks, and circumstances. Had anyone briefed or suggested briefing President Trump? We are all aware that security for the Nation’s Capital was woefully inadequate, and that poor or misguided judgements were made about what to prepare for. Even the issue of response to the riot/insurrection constitutes a question of dereliction or negligence. The timeline of the response should be easily determinable. There are witnesses to the actions taken or not taken by the principals involved.

If the threat was known, then actions can be taken to counter them and be prepared. Where any taken? When the threat become a riot/insurrection then actions must be taken immediately. Is that what we saw? One can ask: What did the President know, and when did he know it? This fourth pillar for the Impeachment case should be constructed around the fore knowledge of the threats that the rally represented to our Security entities. The eruption of a riot/insurrection was not a surprise, was not unpredictable, and was not without persons whose jobs and duties are to foresee, advise and prepare. One of these persons is the President. This additional pillar doesn’t rely on the statements/tweets made by Trump, it doesn’t rely on video or posts from the riot/insurrection, it doesn’t rely upon what political party you are aligned with (if any). It relies upon the law enforcement and security entities and processes that are to protect the nation. This window into the events of that day and the day proceeding it are a set of facts that inform. You still can choose how to use or dismiss these facts, but history will hopefully use and judge them rationally and intelligently.