I don't see how any context can possibly make the quoted passage incitement to lawless action, because the text itself describes the objective and method - persuade legislators to vote a certain way by "giv[ing] them the kind of pride and boldness they need" (not by intimidating them with threats of violence, which would of course be illegal).

I'm not familiar with the geography of Washington D.C., but "walk down Pennsylvania Avenue" does not seem to me to be the same as "storm the Capital building".

Now, I suppose it's possible that some other part of the speech actually did incite violence, but if this is the worst part, it is not incitement to violence. Not. At. All.

There's a contextual history of Trump wishing violence on people: journalists, apprehended criminals, etc. -- it suggests, and it does not have to be "beyond a reasonable doubt", that Trump is OK with having violence deployed against his enemies and that, with the context of speaking to a bunch of gun-toting reactionaries, he is speaking through a lens where the employment of their guns is thus reasonable.

Further, in that speech quoted, Trump specifically says to his followers that Democrats should not be voting.

This one ain't hard to parse.

Trump says of the Democrats, "They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote". In context, it clearly means that the Democrats never vote the way he wants them to, not that the Democrats shouldn't be allowed to vote. (Note he then goes on to talk about whether the weak Republicans will vote the way he wants them to.)

I'm not aware that the demonstrators were toting guns.

Really, give it up. If you want to argue that Trump incited violence in this speech, you need to find another quote from it in which he does. The one above is absolutely not incitement, as is completely clear to anyone who is not blinded by partisan rage.

By the way, your country could do with less partisan rage right now.

"In context," when you remove Trump's say-the-quiet-part-loud advocacy of beating journalists and harming arrested criminals by bashing their heads off of the frames of cars while putting them into cruisers. And also ignore what he's said repeatedly in other speeches where he thinks he should be "given" another term and, oh right, where he straight-up mobster-ranted at Georgia's Secretary of State demanding he find him votes.

Sorry dude. We don't play half-blind here for the sake of your argument.

And if you want less "partisan rage"--well, plenty of the chumleys who stormed the Capitol are still at large, we can sure start there! Somehow, in comparison, I think me chuckling at Parler getting their just desserts doesn't even rate. ;)

> I'm not aware that the demonstrators were toting guns.

The oft-displayed photos show bats, a spear, body armor, helmets, etc. The QAnon enthusiasts arrested in Philadelphia were armed. At least one individual has been arrested for carrying a loaded pistol on Capitol grounds. It is utterly fanciful to suggest none of the rioters were armed.

Have you even forgotten Trump's exhortation that the "second amendment people" might "do something" about Hillary Clinton?

In order to believe that Trump did not incite violence you must overlook the way he's been beating the drum and fanning the flames all along. Writing out his meandering, discursive speech tries to remove from the picture what we all know he means and intends.

You're arguing that you have other evidence that Trump incited violence. Maybe you do. But the comment I was replying to was quoting a statement made by Trump at his rally, implying that it is evidence that he incited violence. It simply does not demonstrate that. It is not evidence of incitement. It just isn't.

If you believe X because of evidence Y, it does not follow that Z must also be evidence of X, just because you believe X (even if this belief is correct).

Not having the critical self-awareness to recognize this is likely to lead you to believe all sort of things that aren't really true, as you start thinking that everything you see confirms your existing beliefs, even when it doesn't.

> It simply does not demonstrate that. It is not evidence of incitement. It just isn't.

Can you explain why exactly it isn't? This claim is repeatedly made, but it has no backing rationale which I would like to understand.

It looks like we're at an impasse: you believe I lack objective awareness, and I believe you lack the willingness to recognize the nuance of human communication.

As previously established, intent is a key element of incitement. When you say:

> "giv[ing] them the kind of pride and boldness they need" (not by intimidating them with threats of violence, which would of course be illegal).

You are immediately excluding lawlessness, which defeats the complete exercise of the test (unless you have additional context to provide, which validates Trump's mental state convincingly excludes unlawful behavior). The point of the test is to examine if there was intent for unlawful behavior. Again, that would transcend the text. We would have to place ourselves in Trump's mind, and examine further, and then create a compelling argument for or against mens rea.