Former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s resignation last week marked the end of a controversial chapter in the legal battles surrounding former President Donald Trump and the events of January 6, 2021. Smith’s 174-page report, released alongside his resignation, unintentionally dismantles the dominant narrative perpetuated by much of the media: that January 6 was an “insurrection” incited by Trump.

This revelation underscores the extent to which the term “insurrection” was misapplied and weaponized in political discourse and media coverage, despite lacking legal substance.

From the outset, major media outlets labeled the Capitol riot an “insurrection,” painting the event as a direct attack on the foundations of American democracy. This characterization not only fueled partisan divisions but also became a cornerstone of efforts to criminally prosecute Trump and his allies.

Jack Smith’s findings, however, reveal that this narrative was built on shaky legal ground. Several pages of the report delve into 18 U.S.C. § 2383, or the Insurrection Act, outlining why January 6 could not meet the legal definition of an insurrection.

Smith’s report acknowledges that the term “insurrection” implies a “rising against civil or political authority” involving “open and active opposition” to the execution of laws. Yet, as Smith noted, his office could not present sufficient evidence to substantiate such a claim. The report concludes that neither Trump’s actions nor the........

© Blitz