Frederica Freyberg:

The impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump continues into the weekend. It’s likely he will be acquitted because not enough Republican Senators will vote to convict him for incitement of insurrection after the deadly January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump’s defense? He had a First Amendment right to speak out and you can’t impeach a former president. Arguments in favor of conviction? That Donald Trump’s repeated calls to fight to stop the steal unleashed his supercharged supporters. Our next guest is a former Republican of some sway with his long-running conservative talk radio program in Wisconsin. He went from a never-Trumper to voting for Joe Biden. He’s the founder and editor of the political analysis website The Bulwark. Charlie Sykes joins us now to give us his take on the impeachment trial and more. And thanks a lot for joining us.

Charlie Sykes:

Good to be with you.

Frederica Freyberg:

So why do you think Donald Trump should be convicted in this impeachment trial?

Charlie Sykes:

Well, if inciting an insurrection, an attack on a co-equal branch of government is not impeachable, if that does not cross a red line, then what would be impeachable? I think one of the things the House managers did very, very effectively this week was to put what happened in context, that the president of the United States is using the power of his office to mobilize a mob to attack Congress to prevent it from counting the electoral votes to overturn a free and fair election so he can hold on to power. This is why the founders actually created, I think, a provision for impeachment of the president.

Frederica Freyberg:

Yet Donald Trump did not join in the attack on the U.S. Capitol. How can he be blamed for it and how could Trump’s rhetoric alone persuade his supporters to storm the halls of Congress?

Charlie Sykes:

It’s not just January 6. Again, I thought the impeachment managers did a good job in pointing out the role of the big lie. And you have to ask yourself, if Donald Trump had not lied about the result of the election, would this have happened? Would five people have died? Would Officer Sicknick be alive right now? And I think that the answer to that is obvious, that Donald Trump fomented this. He laid the kindling wood for it. He poured the kerosene over it and then he tossed a match. This is not — you know, there’s a lot of what aboutism, but this is not the same as just another protest or burning down a 7-Eleven. This was an attempt to stop the Congress of the United States from performing a core constitutional function, which was to count the electoral votes. That’s what Donald Trump wanted. Donald Trump wanted to delay that process and the mob was doing it. So it is unprecedented in American history.

Frederica Freyberg:

In fact his defense says he was engaging in protected free speech and they tried to create this equivalency with Black Lives Matter protests. What’s your reaction to those defenses?

Charlie Sykes:

Well, I think it’s a bad faith argument because there is no equivalency between protesters, individual protesters who may commit acts of violence or of vandalism and a concerted attack on the Congress of the United States. The context matters here. This is part of the president of the United States effort to overturn this election. He tried in the courts and he failed. He tried to get legislators to override the popular vote. He failed. He tried to bully secretaries of state and governors into doing it. He failed over and over and over again until the only thing he had left was this mob. And unfortunately they came very close. This is the other point. They came very close to actually stopping the process of choosing a new president. And this would not have happened but for the words and the actions of Donald Trump.

Frederica Freyberg:

So if Trump is acquitted, which is expected, why won’t Republican Senators vote to convict?

Charlie Sykes:

Well, I think, you know, this has been the long-running pattern of Republicans who have refused to stand up against Donald Trump. If there was any moment when they were going to take a moment to say that we’re moving on from Trump, this would be it. I think the evidence was overwhelming. I think that his conduct was so egregious. They lose nothing. He’s not going to appoint any more judges. He’s not going to cut any more taxes. And I think this is one of those moments where members of the Senate and members of the House have to ask themselves what comes first? Do I put country over party? Do I take my oath of office seriously? Or should I be worried about mean tweets and a primary challenge? I think this is a very, very clear vote. But I also think this is another indication of the fact that the Republican Party just can’t quit Donald Trump. They’re not willing to do it.

Frederica Freyberg:

Well, you say that it is hard for you to watch the Trumpification of the Republican Party in Wisconsin. What is the former president’s hold on that party and its elected officials here?

Charlie Sykes:

I find it really extraordinary, because this was not something that you saw even under Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. I think the only way you can describe it, and this is not original, is to say the Republican Party has become a cult of personality. That what had once been just simple partisan polarization, and it was very intense here in Wisconsin, has now become a kind of raw tribalization. But it is difficult in Wisconsin because as you remember Wisconsin was one of the bulwarks against Trump during the primaries. This was one of the few Republican primaries he lost. There was tremendous skepticism about Donald Trump. Yet you look across the party and looking at the elected officials and they have almost to a person become Trump loyalists.

Frederica Freyberg:

Charlie Sykes, thanks very much for joining us.

Charlie Sykes:

Thank you.