I'll take your comments one by one:

1) If we take his speech in the most favorable light, maybe. But it's not clear to me why a rally in front of the Capitol is any more effective than a rally on the Ellipse. It's not like the folks inside were going to be seeing or hearing the rally goers anyways while they voted. Why did they need to be on Capitol grounds to be heard?

LAHoo: Why NOT at the Capitol, though? When Chuck Schumer and his merry band of communists wanted to protest the Supreme Court, they went and banged on the doors of the Supreme Court. When the Dem street animals wanted to protest Trump during the Summer of Love, they assaulted the White House. Jan. 6 was no different. Moot point.

2) I disagree. I think he came very close to getting what he wanted, which was to push the proceedings back multiple days and create a Constitutional crisis. Things weren't certified until Jan 7 in the wee hours as it was, which prompted John Eastman to raise questions in an email about the constitutionality of what had taken place. If they had managed to hold the Capitol for several more hours, Congress might have adjourned. Security was already talking about needing a day or more to sweep the building, but Pelosi and company made it clear they wanted to come back that night.

LAHoo: We already had a Constitutional crisis due to the illegal and unconstitutional manner in which the election was conducted. There was no good way out of it by January 6. Dems were warned not to fuck with the election in the months leading up to it, but they did it anyway because opposing Trump justifies anything, even wrecking our presidential elections. There lies the blame.

But, if we take your argument at face value and acknowledge that the risks were foreseen, why would he encourage his supporters to go anywhere near the Capitol if there was a risk it would interrupt the proceedings? That would be self-defeating by your logic.

LAHoo: Because there is nothing wrong with a peaceful protest, which is what he called for and expected. It's also what he got: Only a small fraction of the protestors engaged in any violence.

3) I think that's a generous description of his mental state regarding the cops given how long it took him to tell everyone to go home (and reports that he was gleeful while watching on TV), but it doesn't particularly matter for the logic argument.

LAHoo: No comment.

4) If his focus was on the election contest and he wanted things to proceed as planned (#2 in your argument), he should have been apoplectic that his supporters were ruining everything. He should have wanted to clear the building ASAP to get back on track. He did the exact opposite and only did so grudgingly by all accounts.

LAHoo: I don't think he or anyone else could have predicted the precise fallout from eventsas they were transpiring, and, to this day, no one really knows what happened. No one could have said at 1PM what things would look like at 1:30PM. No one at 1:30PM could have said what things would look like at 2PM, etc. Protestors were LET IN to the Capitol and allowed to mill about. No one could have predicted that. Two unarmed women were killed by police. No one could have predicted that. An on and on. Regardless, no one knows what Trump was thinking about the goings-on, so it's pointless to speculate.

To address your final comment, no, I haven't been propagandized. Tell me that picture below is a few dozen people. My argument above is why I'm pretty clear on what Trump's intentions were. He wanted to throw the Capitol into enough chaos as to prevent the certification of votes and let his desperate lawsuits play out in the midst of a Constitutional crisis.