When it comes to criminal trials, I think The Atheist here is correct. I don't think he could be convicted, at least not based on the words of his speech. As he so often does, Trump uses weasel words, and someone else ends up holding the bag, and he denies responsibility. I was listening live to his speech, and I worried that the mob would storm the Capitol, but he didn't actually say that they ought to. It was painfully obvious to me, though, that some of the crowd would take it that way.
To get a criminal conviction, you would have to show that Donald Trump knew, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a criminal act would result from his incitement. That's a tough sell.
Impeachment is a different matter, though. There's no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
I also wonder if somehow failing to call off the crowd could be a criminal offense. Could not protecting the Capitol somehow be considered criminal negligence? I'm usually strongly against any attempt to take ordinary actions and twist them into a criminal charge, In this case, his actions weren't ordinary, and I doubt they were criminal, but if it could be shown that he knew criminal actions were occurring, and he believed he could stop them, and he deliberately chose not to stop them, I think that would be criminal, but again it's a tough sell. It might depend, though, on the testimony of others.
In general, I would not put money on a conviction in a criminal trial. I think the standards are too high. However, he did incite that crowd to storm the Capitol, and I don't really care if he knew he was doing it, or if he did it accidentally via incompetence. Throw the bum out. The man should not be President, and I say that with confidence that goes beyond a reasonable doubt.
