Who was on trial in the senate — Donald Trump or American politics?
Washinton 2021 (Shutterstock)
It is only fitting that the presidency which gave us “fake news”, “alternative facts” and an industry of dedicated fact-checkers should end in an actual trial. And now, after only the fourth impeachment in US history (and Donald Trump’s second), the 45th President has been acquitted of inciting the Capitol Hill insurrection in January.
It has widely been compared to the climax of a bingeworthy television drama, a drama that enraptured audiences for the past four years and, no doubt to the delight of the rating-obsessed former Apprentice host, will inspire films and dramas in years to come. In the last few years alone, the trials of Adolf Eichmann, Christine Keeler, OJ Simpson and the Chicago Seven have been dramatised.
Of course, this wasn’t actually a legal trial decided by a jury or judge, but one conducted in a highly politicised legislature in which ultimately, its initiation and outcome were both predicted: Trump’s opponents voted to impeach him, and his supporters voted to acquit him.
But it was refreshing to finally see the Trump presidency subjected to the rigour of a quasi-legal process (impeachment trials resemble a grand jury inquest). There was a defence, a prosecution, grand rhetorical arguments and the forensic scrutiny of evidence. It might not have been a trial in court, but it had all the trappings of a courtroom drama. If only the entire Trump presidency had been scrutinised this way.
And yet, despite this, the trial was no more balanced than Fox or CNN, with both sides already having decided on their verdict and cherry-picking evidence which suited their arguments. The prosecution omitted the fact that Trump called on the crowd to protest “peacefully”, while the defence underplayed Trump’s knowledge of the events of the insurrection— something which was contradicted by a Republican congresswoman’s testimony.
It brought to mind the argument of the historian EH Carr, who argued that “objectivity does not exist”. Speaking of historians per say but by no means exclusively, Carr argued that “the facts speak only when the historian calls on them: it is he who decides to which facts to give the floor, and in what order or context”. In the case of the Trump trial, “he who decides which facts to give the floor” was all too literally what happened.
In the past, American political campaign ads were a good example of this, but this trial and indeed the Trump era has highlighted that the same logic applies to anyone whose trade involves the selection, and therefore omission, of information – including journalists and lawyers.
It is perhaps for this reason that the very term”fake news” has gained currency. More often than not the critique levelled at the media is that it is biased rather than inaccurate – in other words it prioritises some information above others. In America, of course, where the “fairness doctrine” does not apply to broadcasters, this is more of a problem, but even impartiality-bound broadcasters like the BBC are no stranger to accusations of bias – hardly a day goes by without such complaints being made to Ofcom.
Even the way Trump’s acquittal is now being portrayed ultimately depends on the portrayer: the most bipartisan impeachment result in history if you’re an opponent, or, if you’re a supporter, 2-0. Ultimately, the Trump trial was less a trial than a continuation of the last four years: two sides disagreeing strongly about the former President and using evidence selectively to suit their arguments. Perhaps the medieval practice of trial by ordeal would have brought us closer to the truth.
A Message from TheArticle
We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation.
