According to this section of the US Code, President Trump's speech on January 6 does not meet the definition of incitement to riot. How can it then meet the definition of insurrection?
In 18 U.S. Code Chapter 102 - RIOTS, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 2102 - Definitions, is this:
(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.President Trump spoke of his belief that he won the election, and then asked the attendees to peacefully walk to the Capitol to show the lawmakers their support for President Trump. That meets the exception to the "to incite a riot" definition.
The actual rioters who broke in the Capitol must defend their own actions, but US Code says that President Trump's actions did not incite these people to act.
-PJ
“The actual rioters who broke in the Capitol must defend their own actions, but US Code says that President Trump’s actions did not incite these people to act.”
As I recall the riot began before Trump’s speech. The speech is alleged by the left to have triggered the riot and is their primary “evidence “ of Trump leading an insurrection. The timeline does not work for the insurrection charge.
It was Pelosi and Epps who did the inciting to riot.