Those are central issues. Many of Trumps assertions are seditious in nature. BUT whether they meet the test of being a crime of sedition under US statute is a different matter. And most of the assertions are framed as double talk or innuendo. So whether they cross the threshold of crime would need to be assessed in a competent forum.Like the Raffensperger call, there's a lot of double-talk that is open to interpretation.....commensurable with Trump condoning the riot; whether that constitutes legal liability won't be decided by us, or by any newspaper correspondent. But it's certainly a reasonable opinion to have.