Masha Gessen writes:

Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial was an artifact of his Presidency. It was a battle of meaning against noise, against nothing-means-anything-and-everything-is-the-same nihilism—and nihilism won.

Over the course of three days, the House impeachment managers meticulously lined up facts, images, and arguments. What had been a fragmented understanding of the events of January 6th became an ordered narrative. President Trump had incited a violent insurrection. For months, he had acted consistently on his belief that he deserved to be reinstalled as the President. His actions on January 6th mirrored his earlier statements, such as his praise of a militia plot to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer, of Michigan, and his method of communicating with his supporters through sequences of provocations, promises, and praise. In his opening statement, the House impeachment manager, Jamie Raskin, promised to be brief and specific, offering a case “based on cold, hard facts. It’s all about the facts.” Among the facts was a graphic video of the insurrection, beginning with a fragment of the Trump speech that sent the mob on its way. Later in the day, Raskin described the facts of his own family’s harrowing experience inside the besieged Capitol, and then more facts. “People died that day,” he said. “Officers ended up with head damage and brain damage. People’s eyes were gouged. An officer had a heart attack. An officer lost three fingers that day. Two officers have taken their own lives. Senators, this cannot be our future.”

Then Bruce Castor, the co-leader of Trump’s defense team, opened for his side. He spoke for more than half an hour, mentioning the Federalist Papers; three of the Founding Fathers; the Bill of Rights; having worked in the Capitol building forty years ago; having visited the Capitol earlier in the week; the importance of the Senate; the fall of Rome; the inherent fragility of democracy; Benjamin Franklin; Philadelphia; independence from Great Britain; an unnamed member of Congress; the First Amendment; the absence of criminal conspiracy charges against Trump; the exceptional nature of impeachments; Bill Clinton; former Attorney General Eric Holder; Operation Fast and Furious; the late senator Everett Dirksen, of Illinois, Dirksen’s speeches, and the old technology of record players; the state of Nebraska, its judicial thought, and its senator Ben Sasse; all the other senators and how great they are; floodgates, whirlwinds, and the Bible; the Fourteenth Amendment; the concept of hearsay as illustrated by an apparently clairvoyant driver speaking to his wife in a hypothetical car; a supposed Senate rule that says, “Hey, you can’t do that” (not at all clear what); the ostensible “real reason” for the impeachment, that is, Trump’s political rivals’ fear of facing him in an election; some examples of one-term Presidents; the wisdom of voters; the fear that voters inspire in members of Congress; and the filibuster; then finally concluded, “President Trump no longer is in office. The object of the Constitution has been achieved. He was removed by the voters.” Journalists described the speech as meandering, rambling, and incoherent, and it was all that. It was also an insult to the proceedings and an assault on reason. [Continue reading…]