The claim was that he called on people to storm the capitol. Doing so with coded language where his audience would understand his true meaning while he could maintain superficial deniability if the uprising failed would still be such a call.
If someone is going to claim they are not trumpeting a narrative and are making fact based claims, and not opinions based on their interpretation of words and events, then I will hold them to that standard.
As usual, Simpsons already did it, and claiming there's no relation there is like claiming the tattoo really says "the Bart, the" in German.
Of course, people will disbelieve it, and soon enough, someone like me pointing out the obvious problems with such claims will just be called an insurrectionist sympathizer and be arrested under the new terror laws. So eventually people like the OP can stop worrying their claims will be questioned.
No, there isn’t. Like, literally, the utterance “X is true” cannot mean anything other than “I believe that X is true and believe that belief to be justified”. All statements are statements of belief, and all fact claims are based on interpretation of events (and the utterance of words are, themselves, events.)