Look, I can do it too--charge you with panderbation to Trump by hiding behind legal definitions to evade moral culpability that you know is fully warranted; state that you don't even believe your own fanciful denials; that your evidence-free accusatory responses fail my sniff test.

What is this going to help, eh? It's not going to help anyone be more correct in their views.

Let's address the issue, instead. Incitement.

The dictionary definition--are we charging anyone with a crime here? No? Then we're using the colloquial, i.e. dictionary, definition--of incitement is, "the action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully".

Pick your dictionary. I don't care which. But I am not attempting to try anyone for criminally culpable incitement in a court of law. And if somehow you didn't know it before, you certainly know it now.

Note that in the dictionary definition, which is fully adequate to establish moral culpability if not legal, it does not state that it must be willful.

Your "fauxrage" charge is entirely faux, concocted by yourself by deciding to apply the toughest possible standard and then wondering why it hasn't been met.

I referred to the speech but barely quoted it. Here are several quotes that establish a rationale for immediate and violent action--it is not the only interpretation by a long shot, but it is plenty to have a sound justification for violence.

You can find your own quotes to attempt to counter mine at https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial.

Step One--establish that ordinary law does not apply; you must use deeper principles.

"Well, I say, yes it does, because the Constitution says you have to protect our country and you have to protect our Constitution, and you can't vote on fraud. And fraud breaks up everything, doesn't it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules."

"Somebody says, "Well, we have to obey the Constitution." And you are, because you're protecting our country and you're protecting the Constitution. So you are."

The logic here is clear, repeated twice in case it wasn't obvious enough with one telling: if you are protecting the country, you are protecting the Constitution, and that makes it okay.

Step Two--Establish an imminent threat to country, allowing those deeper principles to be applied.

"This year they rigged an election. They rigged it like they've never rigged an election before."

"We won in a landslide. This was a landslide. They said it's not American to challenge the election. This the most corrupt election in the history, maybe of the world."

"And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."

From the previous step, you know that when you're in this situation almost any action is warranted and is "Constitutional".

Step Three--Point out the proximal cause of this threat to country.

"All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people.

And I actually, I just spoke to Mike. I said: "Mike, that doesn't take courage. What takes courage is to do nothing. That takes courage." And then we're stuck with a president who lost the election by a lot and we have to live with that for four more years. We're just not going to let that happen."

Here, we see that if Pence doesn't act, we've got to do what we need to to prevent certification. Because it's a threat to country, and because threats to country make everything legal to defend it, we are fully justified in stopping it ourselves: we are not going to let that happen.

Step Four--Wait for people to draw the obvious connection. You can ask them, in case you wonder if they drew it.

This is someone who went inside the Capitol building, which was clearly not okay as the guards were trying to keep them out; and who posed happily next to a broken Capitol building window, threatening news outlets that they'd better stop lying or their studios would look like that next (so, clearly not innocently peacefully protesting accidentally wandering inside):

"I don't feel a sense of shame or guilty from my heart. I feel like I was basically following my president. I was following what we were called to do. He asked us to fly there. He asked us to be there. So I was doing what he asked us to do," Ryan said.

(Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/dfw/news/texan-jenna-ryan-cbs-11-hoping-pardon-arrest-riot-capitol/)

Step Five--If all this fails, get sycophants to deny that anything every happened, and deny it so hard that people who think it happened are in fact gaslighting everyone else.

(This isn't actually necessary to demonstrate incitement, so I won't document it with quotes.)

-----------------------

The only part that is in serious doubt is that Trump was aware enough of how the crowd might react that in advance he meant for it to happen. He certainly did a grade F awful job of stopping it--maybe he was inept, maybe he was so beside himself with rage that even though he hadn't meant it he thought the legislative branch deserved a good scare, maybe it was unfolding just as he hoped, maybe it was unfolding like he hoped but he'd hoped for more. That's harder to tell. And that you would need for a criminal charge. But if we're going by dictionary definition incitement, we have all we need.

There is an actual argument for incitement, not just a hint.

Your turn! Let's see what you can come up with.

Keep in mind: dictionary definition, and I am not proving that there was no other possible interpretation, just that the "take violent action" interpretation is a valid one--indicating that people were in fact incited, and it wasn't unfathomable that they would do so (unless they were suffering from substantial psychological illness).