Views on the News: Former President Trump acquitted following his second impeachment trial
*Trigger warning: Death of Black people at the hands of police violence and white supremacy*
Email note: We understand and take very seriously the heaviness of this topic, especially for our Black community members. While we believe it extremely important to continue shedding light on the atrocities of racism and state-sanctioned violence in the United States, we also recognize the need for space to heal away from constant news of this violence. We deeply appreciate any thoughts our community has the space and energy to offer at this time.
Last week, former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was convicted of second degree murder, third degree murder and second degree manslaughter for murdering George Floyd after violently detaining him on May 25, 2020. Given the ongoing police brutality against Black people in the United States, what do the results of this trial mean for the fight to achieve racial justice? What kind of cultural, legal and policy changes are necessary to achieve racial justice in the United States?
Daniel Breen (LGLS)
Former President Trump’s lawyers were on distinctly wobbly constitutional ground when they defended his conduct by citing his right to freedom of speech. The First Amendment protects all manner of strong and offensive language, but it does not protect direct incitements to immediate violence. To tell a crowd of fanatic supporters that it had to be “strong” and to urge it at that moment to march towards the Capitol and “fight like hell” against what for two months he had been depicting as an attempt to steal an election is to incite violence — which, of course, is exactly what happened. But even if Trump’s one isolated call to be “peaceful” during his tirade is enough to shelter him from an incitement charge, it was hardly enough to justify his acquittal in the Senate. Impeachment does not hinge on the question of whether or not a crime has been committed, but rather on whether the president has violated “public trust.” If summoning people to overturn a democratic election, and doing so by assaulting a constituent branch of government, does not constitute a violation of public trust, then nothing does. Those who voted for acquittal deserve nothing but contempt.
Daniel Breen is a senior lecturer in Legal Studies.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Justice.