Is he guilty?

When asked this question, one is tempted to just say "Really?"

The lead editorial in the NYTimes on January 11 calling for impeachment doesn't start with the events on January 6.  It starts with events before the Election, when DJT was challenging the security of mail in ballots.  With no evidence of failure--and that is a constant in all the DJT's allegations and lawsuits.  They were far out demands regarding process.

Many times DJT was asked if he would accept defeat, and every time he refused to answer to that premise.  He said he would fight.

After leading networks had called the election (which took several days for the NYTimes) DJT refused to concede.  He refused to concede throughout.

He alleged fraud, often by Republican governments.  Many fraud lawsuits were filed.  Most were summarily dismissed for lack of evidence or standing.  One made it to the Supreme Court.  All of dozens of lawsuits ultimately failed.

The States certified their elections and their electors and the States are are authoritative in selecting electors.

Even after the Electoral College votes were official, DJT refused to accept defeat, and instead raised a lot of money to fight more.  He arm twisted state officials to bend the results his way.  He replaced officials he deemed disloyal in the Military and advanced loyalists in their place during his last month in office.

The Administration failed to provide the security requested by others to maintain security during his planned Washington rally.

He organized a rally, which he knew would be attended by violent armed and prepared insurrectionists like the Proud Boys, who had openly promoted insurrection.  He had long failed to say a negative word about many of these white supremacist groups, and continued praising them throughout his administration to the end.  He long had non-existent enforcement against right wing lawbreakers like the Bundy's to maintain their allegiance.

In a fiery speech, Trump told his minions the Election had been stolen (a lie), the States wanted to take back their electors (another lie), and that they must "fight like hell" (and many similar phrases) to save their country.

Meanwhile, cooperative Senators and Representatives continued to echo the evidence free allegations of fraud during the ongoing count, against the interests of other states.  What might have been a quick formal vote was dragged out long enough to be vulnerable to attack.

After promising to lead them down to the Capitol, DJT slinked back to the white house to watch it all on TV.  He let the violence unfold for 5 hours, then called it off (after key victims had not been taken).  He failed to respond to calls for the National Guard and Pence had to make that call.

He never expressed any regrets, and continued to praise the insurrectionists.

People are crazy if they expected DJT to tell his minions exactly how Congress should be attacked.  Things never work that way, top dogs always have "deniability."  Coup forces always know what they are capable of doing, what they need to do, and in this case, they were quite well prepared.

Bombs were planted in the Washington DC area to create further chaos.

There is not much to deny.   He organized the insurrectionists, he knew what kind of people they were and what they were capable of, he incited them with a fiery speech, he failed to accompany them to keep them in line, and he failed to stop them even after lawlessness had begun.

He attempted to overthrow the congressional branch of government while performing its duty of officially counting the Electors to determine the next President.  If he had stopped that important determination with chaos--as has happened in many coups--it would be the end of democratically selected Presidents.  It would be the end of the Constitution itself.  is hard to imagine a crime that is more against the Constitution that DJT was sworn to protect.