Here's my take on impeachment. Incitement is a legal term with a legal definition. There are provable parameters of incitement in a real legal proceeding (not impeachment). If Trump had incited anyone, he as a private citizen could be charged as such. Because what he said was not provable in an actual legal context, from the outset, we know that what Trump did does not meet the legal definition of incitement. While impeachment does not require a crime (a precedent set by the 2019 impeachment but by no other impeachment attempt before it at least), the Dem argument is that Trump incited in the generic sense, even though his comments fell short of the legal sense. The Dems are arguing a case that incitement occurred in a non criminal manner in a speech in which Trump called on his supporters to be peaceful and engage in their first amendment right to peacebly assemble. This in effect means the Dems are knowingly trying to bar from office a man engaged in utterly lawful free speech, which is an outright violation of the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It seems there is no way Congress can vote to impeach that does not itself violate their oaths of office to uphold the constitution, for which they should be removed from office.

Addendum: my argument here is that while Congress need not show a crime, using incitement as the impeachable offense is uniquely disqualifying because, if it cannot be proven in a manner that meets the legal threshold then incisive speech without provable incitement occurring is simply speech. And to punish someone for speech is a violation of the first amendment. It would be more valid of an impeachment for congress to allege any other type of non-criminal misconduct than for them to allege a form of misconduct that is both non criminal and a constitutional right.

Here's my take on impeachment. Incitement is a legal term with a legal definition. There are provable parameters of incitement in a real legal proceeding (not impeachment). If Trump had incited anyone, he as a private citizen could be charged as such. Because what he said was not provable in an actual legal context, from the outset, we know that what Trump did does not meet the legal definition of incitement. While impeachment does not require a crime (a precedent set by the 2019 impeachment but by no other impeachment attempt before it at least), the Dem argument is that Trump incited in the generic sense, even though his comments fell short of the legal sense. The Dems are arguing a case that incitement occurred in a non criminal manner in a speech in which Trump called on his supporters to be peaceful and engage in their first amendment right to peacebly assemble. This in effect means the Dems are knowingly trying to bar from office a man engaged in utterly lawful free speech, which is an outright violation of the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It seems there is no way Congress can vote to impeach that does not itself violate their oaths of office to uphold the constitution, for which they should be removed from office.