Yes, I still am a Never Trumper. But that really doesn't bear on my opinions on whether Trump engaged in unconstitutional behavior. In fact, Trump almost routinely engaged in abuses of power, some of which he was never charged. But on the other hand, I never believed in the Russiagate nonsense. I do think Trump blundered himself into the issue by suggesting Russia get involved in recovering Hillary Clinton emails and/or family/aides meeting with Russians.. It's not so much on the substance of a quid pro quo between Trump and a foreign government as the appearance. The indisputable fact is that Trump lacks self control and common sense and to a large extent brought this on himself. This is not rocket science. For most of the past century we had had an adversarial relationship with Russia.
Now does Trump have a right to express his own opinion? Yes. Did Trump have a right to signal that he was taking on the foreign policy establishment and might shake things up. Yes. But you can do that without the appearance of a quid pro quo, basically asking Russia to do him a political favor by going after Hillary Clinton's emails, which possibly included disclosure of classified data. He would later disingenuously argue that he "didn't mean it": he was only "joking". But why would Russia do Trump a political favor?
I have worked in the past for a couple of IT consulting staffs affiliated with public accounting firms. I had to review the accounting firms' customer lists and report/dispose of any shares of client site (and yes, it turns out I did have minor positions in a couple of companies, not material to my own assets or the market. Never mind the fact I wasn't working at the clients in question and didn't have contact with any auditors working the engagements. I had purchased the stock long before I was even aware of what company was auditing them. It pissed me off I had to sell a potentially profitable stock for circumstances beyond my control over the potential issue that I might somehow get access to "inside information". But I knew the rules of my job, and I fulfilled my contractual obligations.
Trump actually tried to host a summit at one of his properties. .This was an off-the-charts instance of a real conflict of interest. Now I do realize that progressives were highly motivated to find any evidence Trump was personally profiting from any of his executive decisions in contradiction of the emoluments clause. But Trump was no victim. This is a guy who bought off politicians as part of the cost of doing real estate business in New York; he bragged about the Clinton's attending his third wedding. This is a guy who tried to use eminent domain to get an elderly lady's property at a cheap price so he could use it for casino limousine parking. He used bankruptcy court to renege on too much debt which he couldn't afford to service. And yet voters bought his shtick Trump argued, unlike his GOP competitors, he couldn't be bought off; he even argued he had bought off Rand Paul by donating to Rand Paul's eye surgery charity in Central America.
But let's get to the Trump's legal teams strategy for the trial over his second impeachment in the alleged incitement of the January 6 insurrection that interrupted Biden's election ratification on Capitol Hill. They appear to be focusing on two points in a defense: (1) it's unconstitutional, apparently because Trump is no longer in office and expulsion is the main remedy for impeachment; (2) nothing that Trump did or said specifically encouraged the violence and property damage at the Capitol.
Let me respond briefly to both arguments. First, there is no "lame duck" period for a President's behavior. He is accountable for his entire term of service. The removal from office sanction is not the only sanction; Ilya Somin and others have pointed out that disqualification from future office is also a sanction, and I could argue other things as well, including possible forfeiture of post-Presidency compensation and other benefits, not to mention a scarlet letter for his legacy and a warning to future Presidents against similar misconduct. In fact, Trump has openly fantasized about returning to the White House in 2024. Now at least some polls post-Jan. 6 showed his approval numbers dipping below 30 for the first time ever. I know better than to bet against a comeback--e.g., consider Nixon's political resurrection in 1968. Absence makes the heart grow fonder, and Trump still remains popular with his political base. But Trump lost the popular vote in 2 straight elections before the insurrection, the economy shrank 3.5% in his final year, and his sore loser behavior and role in the insurrection makes it all but impossible to win the independents he would need for a political comeback. It's not just the fact Trump lost the White House; he also lost the House or Senate. Can someone fill the vacuum? I'm not sure who would as I write. But the GOP needs someone who can win the White House, and I think that outweighs Trump's popularity with the base. The reason the Dems nominated Biden was not because of his appeal with the activist base but the conviction that Biden could beat Trump.
The second argument is more controversial among us libertarians, because of our traditional defense of free speech, even for an idiot like Trump. I'm not going to repeat Somin's cited arguments here, but I'll point out here, as in past posts, that Trump is very aware of "the passion" of his minions. This is a guy who told police they shouldn't be "too nice" to suspects (e.g., rough rides), who boasted he would still be popular with his supporters if he shot someone dead in NYC, whose supporters have beaten a homeless Latino man in Boston and driven a car into counter-protesters in Charlottesville, who has talked about taking out the families of terrorist suspects. His speech may have lacked specifics--he didn't specifically call for the mob to hang Pence, but he made it clear he considered Pence disloyal for refusing to reject electoral votes from states flipping to Biden. It was clear he wanted more than a picket line outside the Capitol which legislators could ignore. He had earlier told the Proud Boys, a violence-prone right-wing group to "stand back and stand by". which apparently was so popular with the group some reportedly had T-shirts made with the motto. We knew that the FBI was aware of the potential of violence, even before Trump fired up the rally. We know the National Guard offered support to local law enforcement before the rally. Trump was playing with fire and he knew it. There are some anecdotal reports that Trump initially resisted calling in the National Guard once things turned violent.
It was Trump's constitutional duty to protect the Congress in session. He violated his oath of office. He must be held accountable, including conviction and disqualification from holding office again.
