[teorema]

I think one big unspoken assumption in a lot of this discussion is that claims to something like the Dems actually rigging and stealing the election would reasonably lead to physical resistance. For instance, if the Dems actually were stealing the election, many people would probably sympathize with the rioters. The assumption is that this isn't true, but it's something that does warrant physical resistance, therefore claims to it at a certain level are the same as incitement to violence. There's also the implicit assumption that the president needs to exercise special care because of his power.

Like a lot of these sorts of things, the issues are complex, and I think a lot could come to light in coming days that might change perspective on exactly what Trump did and didn't do. But I think some care is needed in being explicit about what's being claimed. I think political biases are bleeding into claims of violence-inciting speech more than people realize. I personally don't think claiming election fraud is impeachable, even if it is followed by events such as happened at the capitol, but I do think, say, coercion of a public official might be, as would willfully neglecting to institute expected security protocols at an event known to be high risk.