Jack Smith Report: No Evidence of Jan. 6 Insurrection

Former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s recently released report on January 6, 2021, has upended the mainstream narrative surrounding the Capitol riot. In his 174-page document, Smith admitted he could not substantiate claims that the events constituted an “insurrection” under federal law. This revelation dismantles years of media rhetoric and raises questions about the politically charged investigations targeting former President Donald Trump.

Smith, who resigned last week after his cases against Trump were dismissed, intended to use the report as a final criticism of the incoming president. However, his findings inadvertently confirmed what skeptics have long asserted: the Capitol riot, while chaotic and unlawful, did not meet the legal definition of an insurrection.

Central to Smith’s report is an analysis of 18 U.S.C. § 2383, commonly referred to as the Insurrection Act. This statute defines insurrection as an uprising against civil or political authority through open and active opposition to the enforcement of laws. According to Smith, proving that January 6 constituted an insurrection would require substantial evidence that the violence was a coordinated and purposeful attempt to overthrow U.S. authority.

“The Office would first have had to prove that the violence at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an ‘insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof,’ and then prove that Mr. Trump ‘incite[d]’ or ‘assist[ed]’ the insurrection, or ‘g[ave] aid or comfort thereto,’” Smith wrote. He conceded that the available evidence failed to meet these criteria.

Further, Smith highlighted that prior legal cases involving the term “insurrection” often used the word loosely, as a rhetorical device rather than a grounded legal determination. The report cites several examples where courts referred to January 6 as an insurrection but did so without applying the Insurrection Act’s precise legal standards.

Smith’s findings expose a significant gap between the media’s portrayal of January 6 and the legal realities outlined in his report. The term “insurrection” became a powerful buzzword for news outlets and political commentators, fueling a narrative that January 6 was an orchestrated coup attempt. However, Smith’s inability to pursue insurrection charges underscores the lack of concrete evidence to support this claim.

“These cases, however, did not require the courts to resolve the issue of how to define insurrection for purposes of Section 2383, or apply that definition to the conduct of a criminal defendant in the context of January 6,” Smith acknowledged. In essence, the term was used to bolster a narrative rather than to meet a legal burden of proof.

Smith’s report also addressed the accusation that Trump incited the Capitol riot. While Smith suggested that Trump’s rhetoric around alleged voter fraud may have contributed to tensions, he admitted his office could not find direct evidence linking Trump to the planning or execution of the riot.

“There were reasonable arguments … particularly when the speech is viewed in the context of Mr. Trump’s lengthy and deceitful voter-fraud narrative that came before it,” Smith wrote. However, his team was unable to establish a direct connection between Trump’s words and any coordinated action by rioters.

Smith’s report inadvertently bolsters Trump’s claims that the investigations against him were politically motivated. Trump and his allies have long argued that the January 6 narrative was exaggerated to undermine his presidency and subsequent political campaigns.

Critics of Smith’s report argue that it exposes the weaponization of the justice system and the media’s complicity in perpetuating an unfounded narrative. “This report confirms what we’ve always known: the ‘insurrection’ story was a political tool, not a legal reality,” said one Trump advisor.

The release of Smith’s findings has ignited renewed debate over the events of January 6. Supporters of Trump view the report as vindication, while his detractors insist that the riot’s impact on democracy justifies the term “insurrection” regardless of legal definitions.

As Smith steps down in disgrace and the cases against Trump collapse, the credibility of the January 6 investigations is under scrutiny. For many, the report serves as a reminder of the dangers of politicizing the justice system and the need for accountability in media reporting.

Jack Smith’s report has dealt a significant blow to the narrative surrounding January 6. By acknowledging the lack of evidence for insurrection and incitement charges, Smith inadvertently revealed the extent to which the events were misrepresented. While the report’s findings may not satisfy everyone, they mark a critical turning point in the ongoing debate over the Capitol riot and its aftermath.

The question now is whether the revelations in Smith’s report will prompt a reevaluation of how the events of January 6 are understood—or whether the political and media narratives will persist unchanged. For Trump’s supporters, this moment is a vindication; for his critics, it’s a stark reminder of the challenges in proving such politically charged allegations.