Oh good grief, he makes the argument that if it is defending the country then it is Constitutional.

At that point, any laws that get in the way pretty much go out the window, logically. And he never spelled out what the limits actually are, save for the two contradictory statements that the crowd should protest peacefully and patriotically...and also that they should never let Biden become President (while the key step, certification, is happening right in front of them). He never said that if the peaceful and patriotic protest failed to achieve results that the protesters should just keep protesting or should just go home. Once the peaceful protest has happened, and failed, what do his words suggest that people do?! Why is "take action" not a legitimate interpretation?

You don't seem to be engaging in a forthright manner with the actual content of the speech. Of course there is one interpretation of the speech that isn't problematic, but that was never my charge to begin with. My charge is that there is a plausible interpretation that is a call to violence, and you saying "in my view" just doesn't cut it as a counterargument.

Given that Ryan thought it was cool to be in the Capitol building, access to which was obtained and maintained through violence, how could she possibly have thought anything else than that at least that level of violence was okay, if she was going to participate?