I don't think "the gloves are off" can be an incitement of violence im any context at all. Even a violent one. It only means "it is time to increase the intensity of my efforts in this context". That context could be a fight or a colouring book competition. The term is origin agnostic and nothing to do with boxing.

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.

There is actually a test for incitement set out in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio - the standard is whether speech is likely to produce imminent lawless action.

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.

You may disagree, but the source and context do matter. If I say 'we should nuke the moon' people laugh and move on. If Trump says it's a completely different thing.

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.