You are making an emotional argument rather than a logical one. It makes it difficult to have a rational discussion. Either we agree on a set of facts, or we can't have an intelligent discussion. I (for one) am tired of this silly name-calling.
For what it is worth. I agree with you that saying the phrase "show strength" is not a crime. I have no problem accepting the facts you offer that are true.
I have listed two things that are crimes (if Trump is judged by a court to have done).
I would suggest that "intended to cause violence" can never be a criterion in court, unless you claim the ability to read minds. It would be quite a spectacle to tell a defendant, "We know what you were thinking" as he protests that he was not thinking that.
"Can reasonably be expected to cause violence" isn't a criterion either. If you had that criterion, then everyone who ever told supporters, "These people have wronged you" would go to jail, yet people tell supporters that every day and twice on Sunday.
You cannot point to anything that Trump said that solicited violence, and, indeed, he told them to stop. The idea that someone is literally guilty of a crime because of what you perceive to be the general atmosphere of the statement is contrary to the idea of freedom of speech. Either a crime is literally solicited or it isn't, and it wasn't.
Furthermore, all summer the nation was treated to countless acts of violence, theft, looting, etc. I'm sure there were countless cases of liberals having made statements which vaguely sounded supportive (e.g. "We condemn the violence, but you were provoked" or Chris Cuomo's "Show me where it says protesters have to be polite"), yet conservatives never tried to charge any of them with crimes or, for office holder, to impeach them.
This is just the five hundredth unfair attack against Trump. Speech which doesn't literally solicit violence is legal, even if you think you can read minds.