With hindsight, was Trump guilty of incitement?

Incitement is not the same as encouragement. It has a particular legal flavour and in some circumstances it can be the right term when an individual or individuals are charged with spurring followers on to commit acts that a jury would judge to be violent, dangerous and ultimately criminal. So was Donald Trump guilty of inciting tens of thousands of people to invade the Capitol and to attemt to overthrow democracy. That's at the heart of the upcoming Senate impeachment trial. The reason why Trump will be acquitted is because none, or very few, of the Republican senators will vote to convict him for political/partisan reasons and because they believe it's unconstitutional to impeach a president who is no longer the president but a private citizen. But the question - did Trump incite the uprising against the Capitol? - still has to be answered. I've read and reread Trump's speech to his followers and with hindsight I don't believe that Trump actually incited at all, not in the legal sense. He didn't stir them to attack the Capitol, he didn't do an Agincourt address and inspire his soldiers to fight a war against the enemy, he didn't authorise them to smash windows and intimidate members of Congress. Indeed, he actually called on them to protest peacefully. OK he also said they should "fight" for what they believed in, but that word has been used by politicians down the ages. What Trump WAS guilty of was creating the headline message which drove his supporters to fury and ultimately inspired them to break into the Capitol. The message being that the election was a fraud and that his reelection chances were stolen from him. That message had been thrown at his fans for two solid months. So you could argue that the fatal speech on January 6 prior to the attack on the Capitol was the final call to arms. It's an argument that can and will be used in the Senate impeachment trial. But taken on its own, I don't believe that the words Trump used in the speech could be defined as prima facia evidence of incitement. The people responsible for the violence and aggression were the scary loonies who carry assault rifles when they go shopping and believe anyone who doesn't share their warped view of life are communists. Trump knew that these extremist nutters were among his supporters and failed to disassociate himself from them. For this he was guilty. But I still think it is hard to prove that his speech was actual incitement to commit a crime against democracy.