You’re absolutely right that the violence would not be led (much less committed) by Trump himself. He’s too much of a coward to do that. He’d never be able to screw up enough courage to have to be physically removed from office.

But those who follow him are a different matter altogether. I believe that more than a few of them would commit acts of right-wing terrorism. If Trump whines that the election was stolen, that millions of illegal aliens voted for the Democrats (which he claimed in the 2016 election, remember), and acts with all the bitterness, truculence, and verbal vitriol that seem to be his default settings for political intercourse, then there will be violence committed by his followers, particularly those in the white nationalist (read: supremacist) community. The violence would begin with his defeat and (if he is jailed for his crimes) would not end for years to come.

However, if he is approached with an offer of a full pardon on the condition that he accepts and (at least outwardly) encourages the traditional peaceful transfer of power, then I believe that most of the violence would be prevented. This is nothing more than an application of providing one’s enemy with a golden path in order to prevent further conflict that would cost much more. The same thing was used to get rid of Idi Amin of Uganda; better to pay him off and let him go than to risk disorder and tragedy among the people.

But to your credit, you did show me that I should have taken more time to present my argument more carefully and effectively, and I do appreciate the rebuke.