On February 13th 2021, Donald Trump was acquitted of inciting an insurrection in the assault on the US Capitol that took place on January 6th. Whilst I share popular sentiments that the outcome of this impeachment trial was frustrating, it did not surprise me. Trump’s acquittal was the inevitable product of a corrupt political class and a failing political system which enables this type of behaviour to flourish.
57 senators voted that Trump was guilty of inciting insurrection while 43 voted for his acquittal. Under the the US constitution however, two-thirds of the Senate (67 senators) would have had to find Trump guilty in order to convict him. As this threshold was not met, Trump was cleared of the charge. It is somewhat stupefying that even though a majority of elected officials have voted in favour of a decision, it is the views of the minority that end up being enforced.
“Aspects of the impeachment process have made it intensely political and unfit for purpose.”
From a theoretical perspective, it is perhaps easier to understand why a super-majority is required for an impeachment trial. The impeachment process is all about ensuring accountability within government; therefore, a tougher majority could play a role in ensuring the process for removing a president is pragmatic and will not lend itself to a rash or ill-considered decision.
However, as we have seen in practice, achieving a super-majority has proved to be impractical and has got in the way of maintaining fairness and proper scrutiny within the process. In addition to this, other aspects of the impeachment process have made it intensely political and unfit for purpose.
Unlike a trial in federal courts, there are no set rules for a Senate trial. As the New York Times reports, “the Senate passes a resolution first laying out the trial procedures.” This resolution includes how much time would be allotted for each side to make a case and whether witnesses will be called. Essentially, lawmakers can make up the rules as they go along, leading to the use of political tactics rather than fair rules.
Take for example, the decision not to call witnesses for Trump’s impeachment trial. Republican senators, mainly choosing loyalty to their former president, clearly had a vested interest in ensuring witnesses were not called.
The Democrats’ choice to back down on this matter also had political motivations. The introduction of witnesses would have prolonged the trial and delayed other aspects of Senate business – including passing Biden’s budget – and the Democrats knew they would be risking being demonised for causing such delays if they persisted with their original stance.
Voting in impeachment trials is always political too. Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in 1999 concluded with a 55-45 vote in favour of Clinton being not guilty of perjury and a 50-50 split on the charge of obstruction of justice. All 45 Democrats voted not guilty for both charges.
“While the sheer seriousness of the Capitol Riots and Trump’s connection to them felt evident to us, Trump still had a firm grip on many Republican senators.”
Similarly, in Trump’s impeachment trial, only seven Republicans voted to convict the former president of inciting an insurrection and all other Senators voted along party lines.
While the sheer seriousness of the Capitol Riots and Trump’s connection to them felt evident to us, Trump still had a firm grip on many Republican senators. Although he had lost the election, it was a disturbingly close call with Trump winning more than 70 million votes; the second-highest total in American history.
Looking forward to the next election, Republican senators knew that they risked losing a big Republican voter share if they turned on Trump. Ultimately, personal political ambition trumped their duty as elected representatives. As such, they steered this trial from the way it was carried out to their final vote to protect Trump.
“Imagine voting for an elected official to represent your views and interests only for that elected representative’s voice to be stifled by a powerful minority when it mattered most.”
When an outcome like this acquittal occurs, it seems unsurprising that so many US citizens feel so disillusioned with politics. Imagine voting for an elected official to represent your views and interests only for that elected representative’s voice to be stifled by a powerful minority when it mattered most.
To add salt to the wound, this isn’t the first-time loopholes within the USA’s political frameworks have enabled Donald Trump to gain or maintain undeserved power. When he was elected in 2016, Hilary Clinton had won the popular vote but because of the workings of the electoral college, it was Donald Trump who was elected as president.
Provisions like the electoral college, the use of super-majorities, and the impeachment process, were all designed, at least in part, to guard US politics from dangerous populism and the rise of tyranny.
Instead, they have allowed a populist candidate to become president, to perpetuate bigotry, misinformation, and hatred, and to directly challenge the process of free and fair elections with impunity, thereby failing to preserve and uphold democracy.
“A conviction was needed to show the US and the world that threats to America’s democratic principles and processes would not be tolerated by anyone, Democrat or Republican.”
Admittedly, there has been debate about why the impeachment trial was even going ahead given that Trump was already out of the White House. For me, the answer is simple. A conviction was needed to show the US and the world that threats to America’s democratic principles and processes would not be tolerated by anyone – Democrat or Republican.
A successful conviction would have held Trump accountable for his divisive actions; it would have fairly represented the views of the majority of the Senate; and it would have boosted the legitimacy of democracy in the US after its health had been called into question.
The decision to acquit the former president undermined these basic tenets of democracy and has sent the message that no line, not even inciting an insurrection and opposing America’s core democratic values, is too far to cross.
When you combine the fallible political systems that facilitated this and the politicians that took advantage of them, it seems clear that America’s political system is failing and that democracy in the US is becoming far from robust.
Sanjana Idnani
Featured image courtesy of Louise Velazquez via Unsplash. Image license found here. No changes were made to this image.
Sanjana Idnani
Sanjana is an English literature student at the University of Bristol and an aspiring journalist. She is particularly interested in writing about the arts, climate change, and inclusivity!