Dude, you KNOW that the Supreme Court has set a very, very high bar for incitement of violence in Brandenburg v. Ohio that placed among its 1st requirements the speech that violates this standard is
"directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action".
As you KNOW, its the imminent part of the
Bradenburg test that your claims against Epps laughably and completely fail. As a full night's sleep between his statements on January 5th and the violence on January 6th demonstrate elegantly.
And yet despite knowing about Brandenburg V. Ohio, knowing about the Brandenburg Test, knowing the requirement for imminent lawlessness, you try to pretend that none of it exists, praying we didn't know about any of it.
How's that working out for you?
The prosecutors in question know that Epps' call to enter the capitol on January 5th utterly fails the Brandenberg test. Which is why they couldn't charge him. Especially when he didn't call for any violence. Nor commit or advocate any violence on January 6th.