Your first paragraph and second paragraph cannot both be true at the same time. Trump never called for people to storm the capitol. He did, however, show a disasterous level of negligence that arguably was criminal by not taking steps to prevent it, since it was obviously being planned.
If I’m wrong, I will happily retract my claim if you can provide a quote telling his supporters to storm the capitol, not march to the capitol and remain peaceful, which is what I believe he did say. (And, my understanding is the violence was already underway at this point.) Given your claim to be basing your opinion entirely on his own words and not media narratives finding evidence to prove your claim should be trivial.
> Trump never called for people to storm the capitol.
Did he do so literally and overtly, no.
Was his call to march to the Capitol and give courage to members allied with his cause and prevent a failure of courage taken that way, and intended to be? Certainly, quite a number of the people who engaged in the riot claimed to do so at his direction, and “will no one rid me of this troublesome priest” style direction from leaders is not exactly a novel concept.
The claim was that he called on people to storm the capitol. Doing so with coded language where his audience would understand his true meaning while he could maintain superficial deniability if the uprising failed would still be such a call.
There is a difference between saying it was a call, and saying you believe it was a call. There is evidence to the contrary, so we at best cannot be sure without some kind of due process. People are free to believe what they want, of course.
If someone is going to claim they are not trumpeting a narrative and are making fact based claims, and not opinions based on their interpretation of words and events, then I will hold them to that standard.
At some point you have to start reading the intended rather than literal meaning. Otherwise "it would be shame if your shop burned down" is just a friendly warning for the future, not an extortion. There's a lot of grey area which can be interpreted in context of what people usually do, where their interest lies and what they don't immediately speak out against.
As usual, Simpsons already did it, and claiming there's no relation there is like claiming the tattoo really says "the Bart, the" in German.
Never said there is no relation. I’m saying that claiming there certainly was, in this case, is a stretch because there is counter evidence.
Of course, people will disbelieve it, and soon enough, someone like me pointing out the obvious problems with such claims will just be called an insurrectionist sympathizer and be arrested under the new terror laws. So eventually people like the OP can stop worrying their claims will be questioned.
> There is a difference between saying it was a call, and saying you believe it was a call.
No, there isn’t. Like, literally, the utterance “X is true” cannot mean anything other than “I believe that X is true and believe that belief to be justified”. All statements are statements of belief, and all fact claims are based on interpretation of events (and the utterance of words are, themselves, events.)
Such pedantry emerging from what I can’t imagine to be anything other than a strong desire to deliberately misunderstand me means it’s not worth further engagement. Good luck.
If I’m wrong, I will happily retract my claim if you can provide a quote telling his supporters to storm the capitol, not march to the capitol and remain peaceful, which is what I believe he did say. (And, my understanding is the violence was already underway at this point.) Given your claim to be basing your opinion entirely on his own words and not media narratives finding evidence to prove your claim should be trivial.