Breccan Thies writes for the Federalist about key revelations from the recently released Jan. 6 report.

Former Special Counsel Jack Smith, who resigned in disgrace last week after his lawfare prosecutions of President-elect Donald Trump were dismissed, released his findings in his Jan. 6 case.

While Smith attempted to use the report as an outgoing smear of an incoming president, he also finally admits what many have known all along: The Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, was not an “insurrection,” and Smith did not believe he could convince even a far-left D.C. jury that it was an one. On top of that, he also could not prove that Trump incited the riot. …

… But what’s truly laughable is that Smith dismantled the left’s own arguments that Jan. 6 was an insurrection — an allegation he did not pursue, but certainly helped launder through the corporate media with his lawfare.

Several pages of the 174-page long report, released Tuesday, deal directly with 18 U.S.C. § 2383, or, the Insurrection Act, and how nothing on Jan. 6 could have been construed to be an insurrection.

The thrust of Smith’s argument that Trump could not have been successfully prosecuted for insurrection under the act is the actual definition of insurrection, and the fact that his office would have had to provided evidence that such a thing occurred. …

… In each example, it appears “insurrection” was used as a political buzzword enabling the corporate media to advance the “insurrection” narrative without doing anything to meet the legal requirements for one.

Smith also could not prove that Trump incited the riots at the Capitol. Even while attempting to talk out of both sides of his mouth, saying 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 admitted that his office could not “develop direct evidence” with admissions or communications with anyone involved that Trump intended to cause the riot.