There was no inciting of some so called 'insurrection'. Its laughable. But go ahead dems and keep digging.
There are legal concepts called de facto and de jure. Sometimes what would be illegal discrimination is allowed as legal if it happens just because of fact (facto) and was not required by law (Jure)
Just because some asshole says "we should kill them commies dead" doesn't make him an accessory if white supremacists kill some communists.
And just becuase a man says "peacefully march to the steps of the Capitol and have your voices heard" doesnt make him guilty of inciting a bunch of anarchists.
Yeah but if you say "peacefully and patriotically go" at 15 minutes into the speech and then spend the next hour inciting the crowd into a frenzy, not many people are going to remember what was said an hour ago.
yet he never once told them to bear their arms and storm the capitol.
At first, he was guilty of using code....that theory fell apart when no one could explain how he got the code breaking formulas out to he people. Then he was guilty of telling them to storm the capitol, but nowhere n the speech could they find such words.
Then he was accused of inciting violence....but nowhere could that be found in his speech.
So now he is being accused of asking for peacefulness and patriotism TOO early in his speech.
You see where this is going?
First he was a russian asset....that fell apart....
then he was in the pockets of the North Koreans....that fell apart....
then he was guilty of blackmailing the Ukrainians....that came up empty
You guys just dont get it.
The man can say I love you and you will say he sexually harrassed whomever he said I love you too.