Simple Speech or Battle Cry?

Following January 6th, 2021, many people, groups, media outlets, and companies have classified the speech [source 1] given by President Trump at the Save America Rally as “hate speech” and/or labeled it as rhetoric or a “call to action” which incited violence that led to the breach of the Capitol. I have listened to and read the transcript (at the same time) of the President’s speech from that day. I have done this twice just to make sure I did not overlook anything the first time.

There was nothing in that speech that I heard or read that would lead a rational person to assume the use of violence was the message. It is my opinion that if someone or a group of people were “compelled” to use violence or went there with the specific intent to create chaos, that idea or action was a forethought before the day or event even started. Something else to consider is, there is a probability that some or most of the people who used violence that day may not have been present during the speech as it was held near the White House, which is approximately 2 miles away (+/- depending on the route).
 
The speech however did contain information with supporting figures on how President Trump believes the election, which was conducted on November 3rd, 2020, was filled with fraud and/or had fraudulent elements that ultimately lead to his victory being stolen from him. The election itself is a whole other topic, but President Trump, along with many millions of Americans believe there was an element of fraud present within the election process. Even though some media outlets and other people have stated “there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election” that statement in and of itself recognizes that there was some fraud, just not widespread or maybe not enough to change the outcome of the election. Therefore, the accusations of the President’s “baseless” claims of voter fraud are not necessarily baseless since there is recognition of some type of fraud (maybe not widespread) by media outlets, Department of Justice, and other people. Bottom line, him (President Trump) or anyone else are free to believe and discuss this openly or in private as it does not violate the 1st Amendment, just as those who do not believe this are free to do the same.

I brought all that up because some people, along with some media outlets suggest that it was the “baseless” claims of voter fraud that fueled the violence there at the Capital. Since it is widely accepted by so many people that there was some voter fraud (maybe not widespread) associated with the 2020 elections, it is reasonable to assume that that information alone, whether on a large scale or a small scale, would not be enough to incite violence.       
 
I have heard or seen some people suggest that a “call to action” or “use of violence” was inferred or implied by the President. Based on his mannerisms, along with his vocal tones/inflections, and certain words that were or were not used, I simply do not see where, how, or why a levelheaded person would suggest that the use of violence was inferred or implied.
 
Typically, when an individual or individuals are attempting to rile up a crowd or group for the specific purpose of carrying out certain tasks or actions, they use intentional verbiage with the hope of creating an emotional response. Commonly, that verbiage will have elements of the desired task or action within it. For instance, if I wanted to encourage a group of people to destroy something and I had their undivided attention, I would use words associated with or closely related to my desired actions, which would be destruction. If I wanted that group to successfully carry out the action of destruction, it would not be in my best interest to use words that would promote something opposite of that. For instance, peace or peacefully. Words like that would be counterproductive. Lastly, if I really wanted to sell this, I need to put on a show. I have to be very emotionally charged, I have to be loud, my actions need to be quick (possibly somewhat violent), they have to see that I am just as upset (or whatever other emotion) as they are. They need to know that I will be there with them leading the charge and taking part in the destruction.
 
Of course, just like anything, that is not always the case. Sometimes people can get a crowd going with the energy of an old shoe, but even then, there is still specific verbiage used.
 
Understanding that, I went through the transcript looking for specific verbiage that would be needed or at a very minimum, make sense to use that would help rile up a crowd or incite a riot. The list of words directly below this sentence were not mentioned and/or used in the President’s speech:

• Violence
• Attack
• Storm
• Burn
• Riot
• Protest
• Protesting
• Unrest
• Uprise
• Uprising
• Uprisings
• Kill
• Loot
• Ransack
• Deprive
• Break
• March
• Death
• Die
• Smash
• Breach

 
The following words were mentioned and/or used in the President’s speech, but they are used in such a way that the context is not applicable to “a call to action” or “a call for violence”:

• Hurt (6 times) at/near the 11, 32, and 56 minute marks
• Killing (2 times) at/near the 32 minute mark
• Killed (1 time) at/near the 60 minute mark
• Destroy (1 time) at/near the 26 minute mark
• Destroyed (5 times) at/near the 12, 26, and 60 minute marks
• Force (2 times) at/near the 19 minute mark
• Forced (1 time) at/near the 29 minute mark
• Breaks (1 time) at/near the 64 minute mark
• Breaking (1 time) at/near the 69 minute mark
• Marching (1 time) at/near the 18 minute mark

 
The following word was mentioned and/or used in the President’s speech:

• Peacefully (1 time) at/near 18 minute mark​

My Conclusion

Again, after going through this information repeatedly, I cannot see how a rational person could take such a negative connotation away from this, even if they do not like or support President Trump. In my opinion, specific to this speech, you do not have to like or support someone to be honest about a situation. I find it very difficult to believe this speech was the motivation for the violence at the Capitol. I also do not believe that this speech justified the actions of some organizations to sensor the President, but that too is another topic.
 
My main focus here was the speech and whether or not the President should be held solely accountable for the actions of some based on the words here and in my opinion, no. I think linking cause-and-effect here is a stretch and a bias one at that.

Thank you for reading this article. We hope it was informative. If so, please share it with others and don't forget to leave a comment below!

- Intuitive Defense -
"TRAIN. ACT. LIVE."

Sources

1. President Trump's Save America Rally Speech: CLICK HERE FOR SOURCE