If he said "destroy them" as people are out destroying things, yes obviously. Or if he's been ranting about stolen elections and fraud and calling for action.
If he said "fight them, in the polls | marketplace of ideas! Destroy them!" or something then obviously not.
Trying to pretend any of this is like, too ambiguous to really make a call on, is a joke. Anybody can spot the difference.
Here, the question is whether a rational person in Trump’s position could have known that directing people to the capital and telling them illegal activity was going on inside are likely to promote specific lawless action at that destination, regardless of the specific words used or whether the type of violence is specified.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/01/08/a-civilian-s-g... has a larger primer.
Trump spent years peddling lies and conspiracy theories, and getting right up to the incite violence line. His attempts to keep white nationalist on his side, by repeatedly having to be prodded to denounce them after showing some weird support is a problem. So yeah, if he said those things, it absolutely would count and may not count with someone else.
A reasonable person could reasonably interpret endlessly repeated claims that some liberal cabal is literally overthrowing the government and that America will actually die without immediate action, followed by violence that isn't condemned, mixed with blatant encouragement of violent action, with a long history of identical behavior, as violent.
Your examples might work in a vacuum where the reader has no knowledge of common english terms, any cultural context for the language, or any context about who the speaker is (though even then I think the obvious difference would be detected).