Not that the law matter to liberals, but...

According to USSC and other precedents, the concept of "incitement" holds a high bar... a bar well above what the President is accused of doing. 

Speech with only violent imagery would be protected by the First Amendment. Even the mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not enough to punish it, according to the Supreme Court.

Punishable incitement must "specifically advocate" for listeners to take unlawful action, give the crowd detailed instructions on how to break the law, or enlist the crowd to carry out a criminal act, the high court has said.

Some, including senators in Trump's trial, will point out that the rioters stormed the Capitol after hearing Trump's speech. To them, the evidence that the speech incited violence is apparent: there was violence after it.

But defining the speech by the audience's reaction, however, may be an unconstitutional "heckler’s veto," as a legal doctrine is known.

The heckler's veto doctrine provides that the hostile reaction of a crowd does not transform protected speech into incitement. A speaker is not automatically liable for the acts of anyone who was at an intended peaceful demonstration. Rather, the speaker must have the intent to engage in the criminal conduct.

There's also the issue of "imminence" required for incitement. There was no reported violence at Trump's speech, which was at the Ellipse. The Capitol is more than a mile away. The invasion of the Capitol clearly happened after the rally, but not seconds after the rally, and not in the same place as the rally.

Even if there is proof Trump "intended" to cause violence with his speech, and even if there is proof that the violence he intended to cause was storming the Capitol, there is potentially an issue of whether the violence was "imminent" enough to be criminal.

The fact of the matter is that the only instructions that the President provided the crowd was to march "peacefully" and "patriotically" to the Capital. As of right now, the only thing people who support this impeachment can fall back on is that "others" (on both sides of the aisle) are equally stupid when it comes to the law. At this point nobody can provide any actual statement Trump provided that supports the idea that he legally "incited" anything. 

There is no such thing as a valid legal argument that Trump gave a speech and then a few minutes later some people rioted at a different location and therefor he is guilty of incitement. That law doesn't exist and the concept of it has been invalidated by the courts.

Moreover, anyone (from either Party) who feels that they are smarter about the law than the USSC should not be listened to. If we no longer recognize the rule of law as we work to administer it to our elected officials, then what sort of banana republic have we become?