Sorry, my mistake. I'd misremembered one reply from someone else, on the same topic, as one of yours.

The standard in the judicial process is only "beyond a reasonable doubt" for cases of criminal prosecution resulting in severe sanction. Other standards: "clear and compelling" and "preponderance of the evidence" apply in other cases, depending on how serious the sanction is. Civil cases mostly use "preponderance of the evidence".

Since we're not talking here about imprisoning the ex-President, there's no reason to use the highest standard of evidence.

You keep doubting that protestors were moved by Trump's speech, while not being willing to chase anything down yourself. This is kind of ridiculous. It takes like a minute or two with Google--far, far longer than it took you to type all that. What is your reason for being so recalcitrant to actually looking into the issue?

Here's one caught on camera: https://twitter.com/drewharwell/status/1349436733889404928?s=20

Shall we find a transcript of Trump's speech and go through it to assess how incendiary it was and whether it ought to be called incitement? But first, I'd like to suggest to you the following thought-experiment.

Suppose you have an angry crowd in front of you. You know they're mad. You, perhaps unlike Trump, actually want to goad them on to violence. However, you know everything you say is being televised and you don't want to do something so blatant that you'll obviously be guilty of treason.

What do you say? What do you stress? Your goal here is to go for maximum incitement without obvious culpability.