Why Jack Smith Chose Not to Charge Trump with Insurrection Explained

Washington D.C.: So, you know how everyone’s been buzzing about why Jack Smith didn’t hit Trump with an insurrection charge? Well, he just laid it all out in his report. It turns out, the law hasn’t been used in over a century, and Smith found it tricky to apply it to Trump’s case.

He pointed out that to charge Trump, he’d need to show that the January 6 violence was an insurrection and that Trump was directly involved in inciting it. But here’s the kicker: Smith said he couldn’t find any solid evidence that Trump actually engaged in insurrection himself.

Plus, he mentioned that Trump was trying to hold onto power as president, not overthrow the government from the outside. That’s a big deal because there’s no precedent for charging someone in power with insurrection. Smith felt that going down that road would be risky, especially with other strong charges available against Trump.

In the end, Trump faced charges like conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and obstruction of an official proceeding, but he pleaded not guilty. The case was supposed to go to trial, but it got tangled up in legal appeals and Trump’s claims of immunity.

Smith’s cautious approach makes sense, but it’s still a hot topic. If Trump had been charged with insurrection, it could have changed the game for his eligibility to run for office again. But now, it’s all just speculation. The case is closed, and we’re left wondering what could have been.