Some members of Congress were in on it, as you'll see when the investigation concludes
I doubt it. What they were in on can only be called incitement if those making the judgment resort to "appeals to dog whistle", which is best described as disingenuous if the description is charitable in the extreme.
"Well, none of them actually said people should get violent and destructive
explicitly, BUUUUUUT..."
That's using an absence of evidence
as evidence. That's not how our system works; at least, that's not how it's supposed to work.
It's also, so that this is clearly understood, the same kind of brain-damaged shit the Qtards do.
"ZOMG! God-Emperor Trump said he likes banana sundaes! You all know what that
meeeaaans, right?! Any day now he'll be leading Marine Force Recon in a blitzkrieg assault on the Smurfs village, which will then become teh capitol of the New United States! Hurrr durrrr!"
Nope. Not how the real world works. People only said what they genuinely said. Not what their fans (or their accusers) want or perhaps
need them to have meant.