Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not every cause has the same effect, which is one reason why the law often looks into intent. If the speaker intend to incite violence then it's a call for violence, and if it is not then it's a metaphor. It is only by going through the context and the environment of a statement that intent can be subjectively judged.
Yes, we all know Trump knows how to weasel his way out of anything.
It goes both way. If we assume intent behind a given action that has occurred, then we apply some form of competence to the person in their ability to turn intent into action. If an action is unintentional then there is some level of incompetence in play. The bigger the outcome and the more obvious we view the action is, the bigger the incompetence from a successful defense of non-intent.