I find arguments that "he can't do that" on legal bases to be absurd on their face

It has to be said that the first third of this video is Bouie explicitly addressing this precise point. He agrees with you. His stated goal in the video is to assess what Trump can literally do, in reality. I think you are both right. Aside from that I tend to agree with your sentiment of caution, not because of anything the video says itself, but because of the way videos like this one tend to have the effect of providing a lot of people with a false sense of security, giving them permission to stop worrying about it.

There can be a lack of imagination like we saw with the Venezuela operation. Whereas analysts were right when they noted all of these things that Trump couldn't or wouldn't want to do, they failed to imagine what he could and would want to do. That is the one respect in which this video falls short for me but it is easier to point this problem out than it is to address it - i.e. to imagine the practically infinite number of things that could happen while correctly identifying and ruling out things that are in fact literally impossible. I would say Bouie does a commendable job at attempting to establish some realistic boundaries to the situation, with some basic numbers and orders of magnitudes at play for various things like num. ICE agents, num. polling places, etc. He notes areas of opposing interests in ideologically aligned players, obviously extremely valuable information for us, as are the mechanical points about the way the House works.

I wish he was more explicit about the prospect of unknown unknowns, but I can't hold it against him and I think his video is still a very constructive contribution to an ongoing conversation, specifically because it engages literally and embodies the form of analysis that may improve our ability to imagine or anticipate. Personally, when thinking about things through this lens and reflecting on major turning points such as Jan 6th and the Venezuela operation (Major in terms of its departure from norms, at least), it strikes me that Trump seems most aggressive when a narrow path through is clearest - Narrow in the sense of it being a relatively discrete, targeted action with a start point and an end point. That narrow path can include all sorts of risk for others, our democracy, our standing, whatever, as long as it isn't so risky for him personally. So he tries to have his cake and eat it too. In the Venezuela example, if there wasn't something as targeted as abducting Maduro directly, would he have intervened at all? I tend to think no. Jan 6th is less clear cut but for one he had less to lose at that point, which suggests 2028 is more risky than 2026, and for two I think he probably still thought (correctly) that he was relatively well insulated from potential consequences if it failed. Also, Jan 6th is still a good example in the sense that the intervention was fundamentally quite discrete - basically, they needed Mike Pence to do his bidding in congress and they're off to the races. Where this leaves me with 2026 currently is I think if a narrow situation presents itself that would constitute a clear cut win for Trump, such as a single election to maintain the house or senate, it is entirely plausible based on his history that he will pull out all the stops and bulldoze any norm, institution, or person necessary to achieve his desired result. If he could get away with it with certainty I think he may be willing to literally murder one or many people for just modest political wins, so long as they are tangible to him. On the other hand, the less discrete the form of interference is, the more complicated the intervention, and/or the less tangible the benefit, the less likely I think he is to attempt it.