Wheres the call to violence? Or does strength mean violence?
Insisting on a literal call to violence in that speech is a red herring.
Trump spent months spinning the narrative that the election would be rigged if he lost. When he did lose, he immediately made the false claims that he really won by a "landslide," and that the Democrats stole the election through widespread fraud. Even in that speech, he not only repeated those false claims of fraud, he emphasized how he considered them a horrible travesty, portrayed the Democrats as ready to commit vile acts (like taking down the Lincoln memorial), and even asked Pence to violate the Constitution.
In other words, he spent a large chunk of 2020 and the first week of 2021 inciting violence, convincing his faithful that democracy itself was under attack unless he got his way. The mention of "peacefully" is more like a legal cover-your-ass phrase — if anything, it suggests he knew his supporters could turn violent.
Let's not forget that Trump stalled on the National Guard response, that the majority of his first video statement was spent whining about false fraud allegations, and that the second video was obviously the product of his advisors and lawyers urging an actual condemnation of the riot. Trump clearly didn't think the incursion was a serious problem.
Has Trump done enough to lead to a criminal conviction for incitement? No, that would require a literal call for violence. But does it rise to an impeachable offense that could get him removed from office? Absolutely. The riot is
explicitly Trump's fault, even if he didn't say "storm the Capitol."
