I don't see that I can add anything serious (or even funny) to what others have said, or will say, about Donald Trump as the second person in American history to make a return to the White House - instead of being provided with appropriate prison accommodation. But perhaps I can say something more on a related topic that I will soon be talking about to the philosophy society of which I am a member.
For their sins, most modern philosophers and sociologists have avoided the the implications of the oath a witness swears in court to 'tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'. The promise (irrespective of whether it is kept!) is not that any witness even could add anything to whatever he/she will say in answer to questions, but that he/she will be a reliable witness, that is, someone the judge and jury can believe. In that way speaking the truth appears as a moral obligation.
However, at least since the time of Nietzsche and Frege, philosophy has refused to endorse such an obligation. The so-called 'analytic' strand has been apt to treat truth as at best a reproduction of reality or else simply a logical device. (The latter role might be more formidable than many realise, since truth preservation is essential to logic.) For 'continental' threads - especially Foucault - truth struggles to find a place beyond the claims of power. At the same time, psychology and sociology are all too ready to emphasise that truth has at best a tenuous relation to what we say and believe, and often none at all.
With such a background, and with the general cynicism that leads many 'progressives' to reject even hope a better, more just or more truthful society, we should not be surprised if ordinary voters decide - in default of anything better - to send liar and charlatan Donald J. Trump back to the White House instead of jail.