Given the absence of any valid legal grounds to charge someone with a crime for organizing and giving a political speech, the prosecutors at the ‘Department of Justice’ (DOJ) have devised an entirely innovative scheme to get at Trump, namely, to equate non-compliance with a minor procedure to “subversion” of an election. But just as in all the other circumstances and scenarios which have been mentioned, imploring one’s Vice President (VP) to reject a minor procedure given the political realities on the ground does not necessarily equate to a crime. Proving that a crime has been committed also requires proving that there was an intent to commit a crime, and waging what is essentially a political struggle against a certain class of people who lack political credibility and legitimacy due to political realities on the ground does not equate to a crime, according to American law.
Thus, as mentioned before, the issue at hand regarding Donald Trump is wholly political, not legal. Neither does the highest law of the land in America — namely, the U.S. Constitution — set any parameters as to how a political drama like the one we experienced with the 2020 presidential election gets resolved legally, with the exception of the “adversarial system” and the “balance of power” which are the basic philosophical underpinnings of American law. Why the ‘Second Amendment’ came into the ‘Bill of Rights’ of the U.S. Constitution also complicates the issue of what the parameters are for how a political drama like the one we experienced in the 2020 election can actually be played out legally.
There is an Afghan proverb which states that if a person is seeking a cure for their distress, it is better to go to a person who has actually experienced the distress first-hand rather than going to a doctor who knows about it only theoretically. Thus, in order to fully comprehend the delicacy, nuance, and subtlety of a phenomenon like Trump, as well as other dilemmas and sources of distress such as environmental and social injustice and oppression and in turn awaken others to such delicacy and nuance and subtlety, one must experience the injustice and oppression first-hand.
Also, one cannot expect the perpetrators of environmental and social injustice and oppression to uphold a democratic culture and democratic way of life. Essentially, democracy is a culture and a set of social norms. Democracy is not limited to just elections and voting. Democracy also requires consensus and compromise. And in order to preserve the culture and the social norms which are the essence of democracy, one must be immersed and then psychosocially borne out of such a culture, social disposition, and thus the essence that stems from background and history more than anything else.
For instance, England wields the essence of democracy by virtue of the “Magna Carta.” France derives its democratic system from its revolution of 1789. And the Netherlands and Germany, for instance, derive their democratic culture from their history with feudalism. But certain mainstream elements as well as the talking heads and pundits who wag their fingers at the American public from their televised bully pulpits do not come from a history, culture, or essence of democracy. Hence the “crisis of democracy” in the United States, which in turn can only be resolved politically, not legally or militarily.