Big difference between actual constitutional law and Federalist theory, my friend. If I was "bangin" my sister then you must be our inbred son because you do not understand how constitutional law goes round. Dan Crencshaw worries about one thing: Dan Crenchaw. Now, simple educated guess leads me to believe that a case wherein an uncertainty arises or interpretation of the law must be met insofar as it escapes the scope of the evidence as presented and as that evidence impresses upon the current and standing law, then the court might opine using previous cases or resort to legal theory i.e. federalist papers in order to bring the law to a certain advancement while simultaneously avoiding a vulnerability or egregious violence upon those former cases so as to not corrupt their judgment.
The capitol riots were quite simply not caused, condoned, conveyed, nor even implied by President Trump. Please cite, specifically, what Trump said or did which rises to the level of inciting a riot or insurrection. I'm begging you because I'm dying to know why the press (a name which, in my estimation is above the pedigree of current mainstream journalism) think that by increasing the severity of an effect- a cause of their own choosing will spawn.