According to the definition of incitement - is Trump guilty, why or why not?

He is not.

Explanation:

The definition of incitement is to ''encourage or provoke someone to act against the law.''

It may appear as though former President Trump incited his supporters to attack the Capitol building but this is not the case. Yes he used conspiracy theories and unfounded claims about election manipulation but there was no where he explicitly encouraged illegal action.

He encouraged his supporters to fight to stop President Biden's victory and he said they should never give up. Both these things can be done legally. Perhaps the most significant evidence pointing to the opinion that he did not incite the crowd was him saying:

''I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.''

Based on the above, an argument can be made that even though he called upon his supporters to march on the Capitol, he told them to do it peacefully which wouldn't be the case in an incitement.

If he could be found guilty of failing to discourage the insurrection even though he knew it could have happened, he should be because he knew the character of some of his supporters.

Of an incitement however, strictly speaking, he is not guilty.

faithful servants eumaeus and philaetius:

his ragged vest then drawn aside disclosed the sign conspicuous, and the scar exposed: eager they view'd, with joy they stood amazed with tearful eyes o'er all their master gazed:

these servants know ulysses by the scar he got when he was a child - so when he showed them the mark, they immediately knew this is truly their master and they hugged him, finally starting to believe his words.