Insurrection? What Insurrection?

Oops! Jack Smith committed a gaffe-he accidentally told the truth.

(An edited version of this post was first published at americanthinker.com and may be accessed at that publication here. It is re-posted with permission.)

January 18, 2025

Insurrection? What insurrection?

By James A. George

Oops! Jack Smith committed a gaffe -- he accidentally told the truth.

A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth -- some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say, as the old Washington saying goes.

It perfectly sums up that part of Jack Smith’s report concerning whether Jan. 6 was an insurrection.

We have all heard our liberal friends triumphantly echo the narrative that the events of Jan. 6 at the Capitol were an insurrection and I have personally heard people of significant accomplishment and professional stature mindlessly throwing around the word and attempting to shut down any arguments to the contrary.

So I was more than a little pleased to discover some support for my for my argument that whatever happened on that fateful day, it was not an insurrection, from a most unlikely source -- the final report of the reliably vicious Trump-hating attack dog unleashed by the worst Attorney General to “get Trump” at all costs, Jack Smith.

While I will try not to “get too far in the weeds” in this discussion it is necessary for a complete understanding of how clearly Smith refuted any idea that this was an insurrection, to delve into parts of his report dealing with the issue.

First, what his report did not say: The article which prompted me to take a closer look at this issue made the following statement:

Jack Smith, the dutiful DOJ attack dog unleashed to take down President Trump and eliminate him from the 2024 race, has finally let the truth slip about January 6th. Whether it was a blunder or a last-resort confession doesn’t matter—the fact is, it’s now on the official record: President Trump never incited an insurrection, because there wasn’t one.

While it may certainly be inferred from the language used to justify his decision not to charge President Trump under the Insurrection Act, he did not say there was no insurrection as his Trump Derangement Syndrome would not permit him to go that far. However, his statement clearly amounts to that conclusion once one cuts through all the Deep State bureaucratic gobbledygook and legalistic obfuscation.

Following the tried-and-true approach of closely studying the words in an adversary’s brief -- and Jack Smith is clearly an adversary to the rule of law -- here is the introduction to his litany of excuses:

The Office considered, but ultimately opted against, bringing other charges. One potential charge was 18 U.S.C. § 2383, sometimes referred to as the Insurrection Act, which provides that "[w]hoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." 18 U.S.C. § 2383. Section 2383 originated during the Civil War, as part of the Second Confiscation Act of 1862. See Act of July 17, 1862, ch. 195, § 2, Pub. L. No. 37-160, 12 Stat. 589,590.

As that law nowhere defines the word “insurrection” it became necessary to examine precedent established by previous cases interpreting the statute. That presented Smith with a serious obstacle in that no one had been charged with violating that statute in more than 100 years. The only cases he could find were one decided in 1864 and two decided in 1894 other than a recent decision by the Colorado Supreme Court. His reliance on that case is just one more example of his deceitful intent to smear President Trump.

Here’s that passage:

Courts have found or described the attack on the Capitol as an insurrection. In Anderson v. Griswold, 543 P.3d 283, 329 (Colo. 2023), rev 'd on other grounds sub nom. Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 (2024) (per curiam), the Colorado Supreme Court found that Mr. Trump engaged in an insurrection as that term is used in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The decision of the Supreme Court overruling the bizarre ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court was that responsibility for enforcing the Insurrection Act against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States. The Court did not discuss the definition of “insurrection” in their decision which can be found here.

Thus, Smith was relegated to relying on mentions of the word by three Judges of the District Court of the District of Columbia, a Court in which there has not been a single acquittal by a jury in hundreds of January 6 cases. The sole acquittal was by a Judge in a bench trial.

The report then reviews several dictionary definitions of the word including this one from the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language: “The action of rising in arms or open resistance against established authority or governmental restraint.”

Regarding that definition, it is necessary to note that the only “arms” used in the Capitol building that fateful day was the pistol fired by Lt. Michael Byrd, reportedly a member of Speaker Pelosi’s staff, without warning, at Ashli Babbit, killing her almost instantly. Yet we continue to hear repeated references to the “armed insurrection” of January 6, a statement which is, quite simply, a bald-faced lie.

The second element that the Special Prosecutor would have to prove was that President Trump “incited” an insurrection and here again Smith encountered a serious obstacle -- there has never been a prosecution of anyone for violating this section of the Insurrection Act.

What Smith “forgot” to mention in his report was, as extensively documented in an excellent article titled “Jack Smith’s deceitful January 6 timeline,” that it was physically impossible for any of Trump’s words like “fight like hell” to be heard by those protestors who tore down the barricades (a mile and a half away from the site of the speech) 10 minutes after he uttered them.

On page 79 of his report, Smith states, “Mr. Trump’s words inspired his supporters to commit acts of physical violence. On January 6, Mr. Trump used his Ellipse speech to direct his supporters to ‘go[] to the Capitol’ and ‘fight like hell.’ He explicitly licensed them . . . because fraud was allegedly involved.”

On page 81 of his report, Smith states, “And when he warned his gathered supporters that ‘if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,’ the crowd marched to the Capitol in response.”

Smith fails to state that at 1:00 p.m., Trump had not yet spoken the “fight like hell” phrase, and the speech was twelve minutes away from ending. Smith fails to explain how, given that the distance from the Ellipse to the Capitol is a little more than a mile and a half, the crowd that heard the “fight like hell” phrase at 1:10 p.m. could be responsible for the breach of the barriers on the grounds of the Capitol ten minutes earlier at 1:00 p.m.

As the author of the article first referenced above noted:

We know for an official fact that the J6 events were not an insurrection and that President Trump did not incite anything.

We also now know the regime and their attack dogs were fully aware there was no insurrection on Jan. 6.

Yet, they charged ahead at full steam with this dangerous and deadly lie. Their media lapdogs eagerly followed suit, weaving another massive propaganda net that ensnared countless innocent people in its tangled and deadly trap.

Smith’s uncontrolled power and unlimited budget was directed at a former president this time. It will be used against another political opponent as sure as night follows day unless Congress does its job and takes strong steps to rein in these ruthless tyrants.