Well, that and the question of "incitement" is not limited only to what Trump said at the speech that day, but to the fact people gathered on that day armed with bombs and molotov cocktails and guns and ready to storm the Capitol and seek out Pelosi and Pence and others. What brought them there, what made them think this was a good idea, what made them plan for this? As we've seen with the "grassroots" attacks on state capitols since January 6 (the attacks that weren't) this event was planned, not a spontaneous gathering of "patriots" drawn by some mysterious impulse to Devil's Tower. And we know the Trump campaign was part of that planning, and that Trump wanted those people there to hear his speech and to make the last-chance effort at keeping him in office for four more years.
The GOP argument here is that Trump didn't literally say "now go riot at the Capitol," therefore he didn't incite anything. But at the rally he mentioned "fight" or "fighting" 20 times & said things like, "you’ll never take back our country with weakness" https://t.co/eRk6RjS7qB https://t.co/uSDjMsWGOz— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 21, 2021
Thursday, January 21, 2021
Watch The Donut, Not The...
Parsing what Trump said in that one speech is like reviewing the Rodney King video frame by frame and trying to identify which officer actually struck King when, and where, and how. The question is not what Trump said in any one sentence, or what word or words he used at any one time that morning: the question is, what did he do to get people there in a mood to do violence, and how much did he do before January 6 to create and unleash that violence?
Besides, don't presume the House's case is going to rest solely on Trump's speech on January 6th. They have Trump's tweets, they have Trump's other speeches and announcements. The case is not going to be made by refuting whatever comments McConnell makes prior to the trial.
Posted by Rmj at 3:30 PM