Why do you think they had an incentive to prevent it? The President was the one encouraging the insurrection!
It's not fooling anyone but the brain dead and comatose.
I'm sorry to say it, but you're a textbook example of what a confirmation bias is. You ignore what doesn't fit your conclusion and fill the holes with what you the same conclusion.
The proof that this is BS is simple, if it was "clear" he called for the storming of the Capitol, it would have been "clear" for everyone and more security measures would have been taken and news organization would were digging actively for this kind of stuff would have jumped on that story. But they didn't, because there was no call by Trump except in the head of those who want it to be true after the fact.
Calling this confirmation bias is too generous. Trump's statements are simply a Rorschach test at this point. The content of his statements is immaterial to the conclusions drawn from them.
P.S.: I'm not american and never have been to USA.
Hell, we can go back to 2000, butterfly ballots, Diebold voting machines, and so on and so forth.
People are allowed to question election integrity.
Of course they are but at what standard of evidence do they hold themselves to to accept that it might not be true in the end?
You can question anything you want but there is a point where being a doubtless unwavering sceptic biased toward a particular cause will make you slip into cynicism and denial.
(non-US person here)
I hate that I even have to say this, because it seems childishly unnecessary, but I am not a fan of Trump. But I feel there is enough to condemn him for without grasping for straws.
It seems unlikely that he would not have been briefed on the plots that were being organised and the dangers of feeding this crowd that rhetoric.
He has a large responsibility in inciting the level of denial that have led to his supporters to intimidate or threaten officials, many from his own party no less. Allowing this to go for weeks without disavowing or distancing himself publicly has only embolden a crowd that believed in the legitimacy of their actions because the president would not say otherwise.
Maybe we can be generous and say that things got out of hand but that would only show some lack of responsible judgement on his part and I'm not sure it's not somehow even worse.
But the president should have a moral obligation to only talk about actual fraud, not things he wants to have been fraud.
He spent months before the election saying how the postal votes were fraudulent, had his allies set the rules on counting so they would be counted later than other votes (in critical states) and then used that pattern of lots of "late votes" "appearing" as evidence of fraud - when in fact it was the entirely predictable consequences of how it was setup up.