The Senate acquitted Trump of incitement.
The indictment left out the charge because they would have to prove "incitement"
Second, the impeachment proceedings charged Defendant with “Incitement of Insurrection,” which is not charged in the Indictment. See Opp'n to Constitutional Motion at 60–62 (citing H.R. Res. 24, 117th Cong. (Jan. 11, 2021)). Although there are few decisions interpreting the analogous federal statute that prohibits inciting “any ․ insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof,” 18 U.S.C. § 2383, it is well-established that “incitement” typically means “advocacy ․ directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” that is “likely to incite or produce such action,” Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969). None of the statutes under which Defendant is charged require the Government to prove incitement. See 18 U.S.C. §
The issue is that incitement could not be proved in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is due to the fact that Trump never used any language that pass that barrier. The word "Fight" is used quite commonly by politicians. The language used by Trump was no stronger than any other politician in speeches.
He even said "March peacefully and patriotically to the capital", which could hardly be derived as inciteful.
There was no language such as "storm" or "breach" or "break into" .
He also less than an hour after the protest began, tweeted this.
“Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”
And:
“I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!”
Like I said, it wasn't an insurrection. You can throw any label on a can of beans you want, but when the can is open, it's still just beans.
The j6 held back exculpatory evidence in their star chamber hearing, which would not be allowed in a courtroom.