Democrats could have created space for Republicans to convict Trump. So why didn’t they?

It's difficult to watch video clips of the attack on the US Capitol on January 6th and not come away angry. Unfortunately, the Democrats missed the mark on the impeachment articles against Trump, giving enough Republican Senators the wiggle room they need to acquit the former president. If they had made things a little easier for the GOP, they might’ve got their way.

The anger on the Democratic side is justifiable. After watching Donald Trump lie about the election results for over 60 days, to see the Capitol attacked while Congress engaged in its constitutional duty to count and certify electoral results was infuriating. Who wouldn't have strong feelings about it?

Democrats in the House quickly drew up an article of impeachment against Trump, charging him with "incitement of insurrection" over the riot. The former president had spoken at a rally just before the siege took place, and he repeated many of the same lies he told following Election Day: that he won in a landslide, massive fraud took place, and voting machines were rigged to take votes from him and give them to Joe Biden. 

The speech was one long rant about the election. The rhetoric likely got the crowd riled up. While bringing a criminal case against Trump would prove difficult, the bevy of lies he told and actions he said Congress and Mike Pence could make on his behalf created the perfect scenario for articles of impeachment almost any Republican would have difficulty defending against. 

However, the Democrats' sole focus on the "incitement of insurrection" gives Republicans a weasel-way out of conviction. Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas voted against the impeachment article while articulating that the president engaged in impeachable conduct. 

Roy said the House should have focused on Trump's pressuring of Vice President Mike Pence to violate his constitutional oath and he's right. He's referencing Trump's call for Pence to refuse to accept electors and send it back to the states to "rectify" the results. 

Trump mentioned Pence seven times during his speech, imploring him to do "the right thing" and "send it back." His final plea to Pence was to "stand up for the good of our Constitution and for the good of our country. And if you're not, I'm going to be very disappointed in you."

In a tweet Trump sent out while the Capitol was under attack, Trump said of his vice-president, "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!"

The president violated his oath to uphold the Constitution by pressuring Pence to break his. He also violated his oath of office when he attempted to get the Georgia Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, to "find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state." Trump lied, saying he won the state by "hundreds of thousands of votes," so "finding" enough votes to put him ahead to "win" the state. 

It's clearly egregious behavior, and the only way Republicans could defend against it would be to rely on the poorly formed argument that the impeachment trial itself is a sham since Trump is no longer in office. 

More importantly, making that argument would create a space for 17 Republicans to join with Democrats to convict Trump and prohibit him from holding federal office again. Serving in the federal government is not a right. It's a privilege — one that Trump should lose for his reckless behavior and total disregard for the Constitution in service of his personal political gain. 

The short-term political downside exists. The state GOP in Wyoming and Nebraska censured Rep. Liz Cheney and Sen. Ben Sasse over their impeachment votes. However, Trump can do a lot more long-term damage, especially if he has the opportunity to run again. The question is whether or not enough Republican Senators will take the chance on the impeachment article before them. Right now, the signs point to "No."

Jay Caruso is managing editor at the Washington Examiner