Trump’s trial was purely political

Well, the trial of the century is over, and our senators have revealed their stripes. That’s yellow stripes for 43 of them. It appears that POTUS 45’s lawyers were right: The impeachment trial was “political,” rather than “legal.”

It was interesting to watch, as normal legal standards: a judge with actual (rather than just parliamentary) power, witnesses, rules of evidence, etc. were not necessary. Nor perhaps were they needed or appropriate, for this unique process. The Senate, as I guess we all now know, is not subject to the same rules as the rest of us.

In the end, the jury, even after establishing that an ex-official could be impeached, decided that the accused was not guilty, on the basis that he was — an ex-official! Lucy Van Pelt promises not to pull the ball out of the way, but like Aesop’s scorpion, cannot resist “nature.”

The House managers made a compelling argument, while the defense attorneys, rambled, bumbled, persisted in the false narrative of ex-official impeachment, lied, etc. It does look like lying is OK in this venue.

The really fun part came after the vote was sealed, and the Senate coleader on the defendant’s side (initials same as those of Magic Kingdom’s lead character), basically admitted that the ex-president had indeed incited riotous insurrection and was the proximate cause of the destruction, and deaths on Jan. 6 at the Capitol. But note that, although he himself suggested postponing the impeachment until after POTUS 45 was no longer in office: the resulting conclusion was that the expresident couldn’t be impeached because (wait for it) … he was not longer in office.

Circular logic of the kind used by the Proud Boys, whom many have been called “jerks.” (Did you know that the Proud Boys were founded by a Canadian/Scot?)

So, bottom line, was the country still here today? What exactly did we lose when the Big Lie did not come true? Aside from the “mask” thing, what specific “freedoms” were stolen from us this week? The freedom to not get vaccinated and protect our friends, family and neighbors? The freedom to buy that Taurus “Judge” revolver “for grandma?” The freedom to quote some parts of scripture or the Constitution, but not the parts we don’t like? (Forgiveness, compassion, turning the other cheek, the rule of law, etc.)

What specific “freedom” that is likely only available in the United States of America, do you feel you are entitled?

I believe I’ll take the freedom we have right here, thank you, even if it does mean being politically correct, now and then.

Paul Donnelly New Fairfield