Read on Twitter
Speaking on BBC World Service about how Trump's speech constitutes incitement. This is not just a matter of individual quotes but how the speech as a whole creates a model of social relations that facilitates collective violence. This has 3 key dimensions. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172x2z60vvb6l8
First, Trump divides American society into 'us' and 'them' - those who support him are the only true patriots, those who challenge him are either enemies or in collusion with them (either actively or passively by not standing up in opposition).
Second, Trump constitutes his opponents as an existential threat to America and American patriots. If they prevail, it won't just be bad for 'our country', we will have no country left. Inaction therefore equates to extermination of the group.
Third, Trump moralises the argument: Our America is uniquely good and great. Those who endanger it are therefore an enemy of the good and their destruction is the preservation of the good. It is a moral act done out of love.
In sum, through the speech as a whole Trump assembles all the jigsaw pieces which allow - or rather impel - people to assault the Capitol. But, critically that does not absolve them of responsibility or suggest they have no autonomy.
Trump engages them as his followers and sets them a general goal, but they still act knowingly and creatively to implement that goal, often striving to outdo each other in rooting out the 'traitors'.
It is a process of competitive radicalisation in which people are less following Trump than working towards him (to borrow Ian Kershaw's phrase). It is one in which both act knowingly, both have agency and both should be held accountable.