There were never charges filed, so when it comes to incitement, that's not the case. The Court in that situation never got the opportunity, IMO because the charges were extremely unlikely to stick given the narrowness of. the incitement exception in the Brandenburg standard.
He wasn't charged with incitement, but he was indicted for conspiracy to overturn the election, and whether that constituted "insurrection" could and would have been litigated as part of that process. Trump v. United States halted those proceedings to make it's "presumptive immunity" ruling"...
in Trump v. United States, timed in such a way as to guarantee that the proceedings would not meaningfully advance prior to the election.
Was he indicted for insurrection? I didn't think he was though the J6 committee did make that recommendation. I forget (and I can't look it up til later) but I think they tried to make lesser charges (conspiracy & obstruction) that may have been more likely to stick...until they were dismissed.
I don’t think that there’s a specific crime called “insurrection”; that’s the issue here. It’s just that that’s the word the constitution uses. They were talking about Confederates! The question is whether it applies to what Trump did.
And like I say, the common sense answer is "yeah, of course!" But he and his defenders are just gonna always say "nuh uh that's not what happened, Mr Trump didn't do any violence and insurrecting" and it'll be a standoff unless a court decides!