Criminal Changes? This seems very unlikely.....
Pick the statute
show us the elements
show us the facts which satisfy the elements
Then provide counters to all the obvious defenses...
Plus the first amendment.
Then tell us a majority of jurors will find guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
---
Here is a bit of head start....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ting-the-attack-on-capitol-hill-idUSKBN29I01P
Trump can argue that his rhetoric was sufficiently ambiguous, and that when he said “fight” he did not mean attack the Capitol, they said.
In a seminal 1969 case, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of an Ohio Ku Klux Klan leader, Clarence Brandenburg, for his brief speech at a rally urging a dozen followers to go to Washington and attack politicians.
The court said prosecutors have to prove speech is directed at inciting “imminent lawless action” and it has to be likely to produce that action.
“My own tentative view is that it was First Amendment protected speech and therefore it should not be subjected to criminal liability,” said Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, adding that Trump’s rhetoric was still grounds for impeachment by Congress, considering his position as an elected official.
