I'm not saying that it's "no big deal", I'm saying every action has consequences, and countervailing interests need to be carefully weighed.
I was recently discussing this concept in another thread where I was talking about the instances where presidents have authorized the "taking out" of certain terrorists. "On Paper", the notion of '
you commit terrorist acts that cost American lives, we take you out' sounds right, if you're not taking into account the fact that such interventions could serve to radicalize even more people and bite us in the butt later.
I propose that kind of careful decision making needs to be done for this as well.
"Let Trump slide on some stuff and fade away into irrelevance, even if it doesn't satisfy a carnal need you have to go after him and make him pay...and things can drift back toward normalcy"
vs.
"Go after him to the fullest extent on absolutely everything wrong he's done and spare no expense, with the potential effect of reinvigorating a base that was shrinking and losing interest, and now you run the risk of having him getting elected again in 2024"
I would go with the former option and let him slide on some stuff in hopes that maybe I'll get to pick between 2 relatively normal people next time around instead of listening to two old men have a shouting match in the debates.
Unless this is the democrats playing some of that "4d chess", where they're purposely doing things that will help him rise to the top of the GOP, because they think he's more radical, has more baggage, and would be easier to beat than DeSantis...and they'd probably be right about that part, in terms of Democrats who could go toe-to-toe with DeSantis, they don't have a very deep bench...but they have plenty of people who could beat Trump due to the baggage he's coming in with.
It wouldn't be the first time they tried that approach.
Democrats’ Risky Bet: Aid G.O.P. Extremists in Spring, Hoping to Beat Them in Fall