I think you don't really understand intent that well. It's understandable, it's a pretty hard topic in law school and they drill you heavy on it for the bar exam.

Intent does not necessarily have to be verbally manifested by a person for it to exist. After all, that would leave most murderers practically invulnerable to prosecution. Rather, we use a process called inferred intent, where the factfinder can infer criminal intent from facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe it existed. That said, let me lay out the logical chain that I would present to a jury, just using the sources I cited for you.

Most Trump supporters follow the election fraud narrative pretty closely, which has included Wood and his tweet about executing the Vice President. Additionally, TDW is one of the primary mobilizing platforms for MAGA and heavily promoted the January 6th protest. It's reasonable to infer both that (1) some of those at today's rally were Trump supporters and (2) TDW users. It follows that these protesters possessed knowledge of (1) the execution narrative, and (2) the general rhetoric of violent threats, and specific rhetoric for violence on January 6th, promulgated on TDW (as shown in the Philadelphia Inquirer). Not all protesters stormed the capitol. However, it is reasonable to infer that the minority who did were strong supporters of Trump. After all, who storms the capitol just for the kicks of it? Likewise, it is reasonable to infer that, among all levels of support, strong supporters are most likely to follow the election fraud narrative closely and be active on TDW. Those who stormed the capitol — possessing immediate knowledge of the background of threats and violence associated with the January 6th protest — thus reasonably can be inferred to have had the intent to commit violence inside the capitol building.

The thing about Donald Trump, Jr., is more what we call impact evidence. It would probably catch a relevancy objection, but hey, might as well try to get it in.

Anyways, maybe you'll read all that, maybe you won't. I don't know. I'm buzzed after finishing case work, so I enjoyed typing it anyways. Regardless, you're trying to tell me that users from a website which is now on the verge of being delisted for violence were, in fact, not violent when they overcame police, broke through doors, and tried to breach into Congress (which resulted in a death). Res ipsa loquitur my guy.