Too many people here are unable to distance themselves from their ideological contempt for Trump to be able analyze this with a clear mind. There is not much of a case that Trump "incited" a riot. The fact that this was planned for months only further cements that.
Check your own biases. He was telling a huge crowd that the election was stolen, he would show proof the same day (we are still waiting), and they “will not stand down”. What else is needed to make that case?
Like it or not, Trump is allowed to dispute the results of the election. He's also allowed to do so openly and to a crowd. Language like "will not stand down" is obviously in reference to the "fight" for his "case" and falls in line exactly with the language he had been using at previous rallies and on Twitter. Was he "inciting" a riot then?
I hate that I even have to say this, because it seems childishly unnecessary, but I am not a fan of Trump. But I feel there is enough to condemn him for without grasping for straws.
I think we can at least agree that despite his double-speak, the fact that he has been stirring his crowd to act on the 'steal' is not inconsequential.
It seems unlikely that he would not have been briefed on the plots that were being organised and the dangers of feeding this crowd that rhetoric.
He has a large responsibility in inciting the level of denial that have led to his supporters to intimidate or threaten officials, many from his own party no less.
Allowing this to go for weeks without disavowing or distancing himself publicly has only embolden a crowd that believed in the legitimacy of their actions because the president would not say otherwise.
Maybe we can be generous and say that things got out of hand but that would only show some lack of responsible judgement on his part and I'm not sure it's not somehow even worse.
But the president should have a moral obligation to only talk about actual fraud, not things he wants to have been fraud.
He spent months before the election saying how the postal votes were fraudulent, had his allies set the rules on counting so they would be counted later than other votes (in critical states) and then used that pattern of lots of "late votes" "appearing" as evidence of fraud - when in fact it was the entirely predictable consequences of how it was setup up.
What else is needed to make that case is actually incitement. He did no such thing, although the speech was obviously irresponsible. Here in the States incitement has a strict legal meaning and its conditions are nowhere near satisfied by his speech.
