But they did fail to persuade a sizeable portion of their audience-Senators, ordinary Trump supporters who had not taken part in the insurrection-that there was a symbiotic connection and causal link between the face-painted insurrectionist with a spear and animal pelt and the spray-tanned President with a Twitter account and Brioni suit. Jamie Raskin and his fellow House managers did not fail to convince the majority of the public that a previously unthinkable insurrection mounted by Trump loyalists had occurred at the Capitol only a few weeks prior: after all, there was copious video evidence as well as the testimony of injured law-enforcement officers. The failure to attach Trump’s unprecedented actions to the insurrection itself during the second impeachment was in part a failure of imagination. Imagination-its power to generate new possibilities on the stage and in the audience-is critical to any successful dramatic performance.
Devoted to Trump and his “big lie,” these Republicans had inserted themselves into the drama of January 6 by helping to rile up partisans at the rally that preceded the insurrection, and by voting against certifying electors in states that Biden won. This ambiguity surrounded not just the central protagonist (the extent of Trump’s involvement was not yet well-determined), but also those Republican members of Congress who had voiced disbelief in the outcome of the 2020 election. This had something to do with ambiguity about who the dramatis personae were. By this criteria, Trump’s second impeachment failed as a dramatic performance because this compact was never entirely secured.
Jamie raskin wikipedia trial#
Moreover, Republicans had the advantage of claiming that not only was the central actor in the drama-Donald Trump-miscast by the House managers, but that having already vacated his office, he was unavailable to perform, and shouldn’t have been part of the show at all.Įvery theatrical producer, and every trial lawyer, knows that a successful performance involves an unspoken compact between actors and audience. Democrats did their best to mount a credible showing, but they struggled under pressure of a limited production schedule, and an audience that was compelled to attend against their will (some GOP senators were spotted playing games on their phones and napping.) Then there was the fanfare surrounding a bigger show down the street: the newly-installed Biden Administration. These failures-the failure to mount a convincing prosecution and the drabness of the performance itself-were interrelated. As a work of political theater, it resembled an off-Broadway show that opens to decent reviews, has a few shining moments (one might point to the video compilation of the insurrection itself), but closes a week later without much notice. But as a legal proceeding, the second impeachment trial of President Trump not only failed to achieve its goal: compared to the insurrection, it was a flop.
The costumes, the flags, the signage, and the face-paint compelled and stunned many viewers, as insurrectionists attempted to make their fantasy coup d’etat-installing Donald Trump as president after an election he had lost-a reality.ĭemocrats, who were now in the majority, charged that Trump was the director and stage manager of this political performance, and within days filed articles of impeachment.
January 6 was broadcast on live TV, bringing the performativity of Trump partisans to many Americans who had never experienced their theatrical quality. Photo credit: Tyler Merbler / Wikipedia ( Creative Commons Attribution 2.0)Īs we contemplate the one-year anniversary of America’s most recent insurrection, how should Democrats imagine moving forward? Let’s start by looking at the past. Trump supporters storm the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.
0 kommentar(er)
