I'm afraid that "I saw it on the telly" doesn't cut it. Camera angles, editing, etc....

In this case I think it does potentially cut it, Steve. The accusation is that he stirred up and sought to enrage the crowd and sent it up to the Capital, falsely promising to accompany it.. The television record of his speech on January 6th is direct evidence of what he did on that day. Not edited extracts, the entire speech.

Clearly the legal status of the Senate hearing isn't that of a criminal court, and the outcome does not allow for anything equivalent to the penalties available in a criminal court - though that is purely contingent. It could easily have been possible and perfectly legal for such penalties to be within the power of the Senate. However I think it is correct to use the term "trial", without implying that the word has precisely the same meaning as in the case of a conventional criminal trial.

However the offence of insurrection, including directly inciting insurrection is very definitely a criminal act, subject to further trial in a criminal court, which could potentially impose very severe penalties (I would suspect that theoretically insurrection couldx in the US be subject to capital punishment.) I would doubt if the decision of the Senate in this matter either way would be seen in such a court as relevant to its finding.