They should be able to remove his account and decide not to.

That’s not what he said. If I say “Twitter should not ban shepardrtc”, I am not saying that Twitter should not ban you no matter what you do.

As for Trump, there is certainly a case for treating his account differently. He is the President of the United States. These aren’t the musings of someone who doesn’t matter. They are the thoughts, intentions, and announcements of the most powerful man in the world. In the same way that Twitter wouldn’t censor horrifying but true news, they shouldn’t censor the President. Anything that the President tweets is news.

Imagine if they banned him and he moved to another site. Would Twitter then ban people for reporting, on Twitter, what the President said?

I agree that they should treat his account differently, but in the other direction. The fact that his words matter so much means they should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.

but a higher standard of what? His words will be more scrutinized but beyond that should a higher standard of censorship be implored? If that's the underlying suggestion than who's this arbiter of good speech and how might that go about working?

"No matter what happens" is a ridiculous condition, and I think you know that. However, from Twitter's about page:

> Our mission: Give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers.

Give everyone. Not give people I agree with, or people I think are good -- everyone. It's an admirable, worthwhile goal. Whether they'll stick to it or not....

What would be an example of something they should take his account down for that would otherwise be legal to post?