Author’s Note: Readers of these columns often urge me to stop dredging up the past and start looking forward. But the quandary is that even though the January 6 episode happened three and a half years ago, it haunts us still — it’s present in courtrooms, in public discourse, and on every voter’s mind. It will influence the 2024 presidential election for sure, and we will have to live with that election’s outcome for years to come. It remains a very current issue — so bear with me as I dredge away.

We’ve heard it a thousand times, the well-worn narrative that has become the epicenter of Democrat thinking, strategy, and communications about the upcoming election. The narrative, in short: Donald Trump’s criminal attempts to overturn the results of a free and transparent 2020 election culminated in an insurrection on 1/6/2021, the most serious assault on American democracy since the Civil War. He poses a clear and present threat to our nation.

It’s a damning allegation. If we believe it to be an accurate statement of Trump’s 2020 post-election actions, the coming election should be an easy win for Joe Biden. How can we allow Trump to be our president again?

But it’s not accurate. It is a set of carefully chosen and artfully misused words intended to create an impression, not communicate fact. It’s a spin job. Let’s take a closer look.

1.) Question: Is “attempting to overturn an election” any different than challenging or contesting election results?

Answer: There’s no difference — they’re the same, and they happen all the time at every level of federal and state elective office. Some challenges are perfunctory, others controversial and disruptive, and sometimes they change the election outcome.

Two examples, among many: In 2004, Washington State Democrat gubernatorial candidate Christine Gregoire challenged her narrow election night loss; she pulled ahead only after multiple recounts, ultimately winning by 129 votes. In 2008, Democrat Senate candidate Al Franken contested GOP incumbent Norm Coleman’s apparent win; after seven months of recounts, additional challenges, and court battles, Franken was declared the winner by 321 votes — out of more than three million cast.

I don’t recall anyone calling events like that “overturning election results” or suggesting that the post-election challenges were illegal or improper.

2.) Fair and transparent? Obviously not. The 2020 election was tarred by social media actions to hide information that voters should have been able to see, confounded by major COVID-related expansion in mail-in voting practices, and it produced the highly suspicious outcome of lackluster candidate Joe Biden’s receipt of millions more votes than any presidential candidate in American history. Surely, reasonable people on all sides can agree that the 2020 election warranted thorough examination.

3.) Electors and certification. A key step in the presidential election process is the certification of election results and seating of the state-selected Electoral College electors. That process is not just a formality — it’s safe to assume that the Constitution calls for that to be done via a joint session of Congress in order to afford each elected representative and senator the opportunity to confirm satisfaction that the election results are sound. It’s neither unusual nor improper for some participants to disagree. In previous certifications, J6 Committee stalwarts Bennie Thompson (2004) and Jamie Raskin (2016) both voted against seating his state’s Republican electors.

Clearly, the appropriate time for contesting a presidential election is before certification. The actions for which Trump has been widely condemned all took place prior to that important step. Also note that in cases with the potential for late changes to the final vote tallies, it is not uncommon for provisional electors to be preselected. They are not “fake electors,” as charged in several court cases against Trump associates.

4.) Insurrection? An insurrection is, by definition, a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government. Insurrection is a tough hill to climb, even against relatively weak governments — our CIA failed to orchestrate an insurrection to unseat Cuba’s Fidel Castro in 1960. A successful insurrection against the United States is practically inconceivable.

January 6 was an ugly, violent riot. We’re sadly familiar with riots — just look around at college campuses today or recall the 2020 eruption of violent riots across the country. But there is no conceivable circumstance or sequence of events in which that three-hour incursion into the U.S. Capitol by an unarmed, disorganized crowd of ruffians could have resulted in Trump’s reinstallation as POTUS. Trump is badly remiss for failing to quell the uprising promptly and emphatically — but even absent constructive action by him, it lasted for only a few hours, and its net impact on the 2020 election was delay of certification by several hours.

The riot on January 6 was inexcusable, and Trump deserves some of the blame — but the idea that it constituted an insurrection is absurd.

Give the Congressional J6 Committee an “A” for Hollywood-quality presentation and a “D-” for transparency and completeness. It held closed hearings and shared with the public only what it wanted us to hear. We never did find out who planted the pipe bombs, why there was no enhanced security that day, or how many FBI agents were in on the deal.

Donald Trump’s post-election actions were harmful in many respects. Each American voter will have to decide for him or herself whether his actions disqualify him for the presidency or if other issues — border security and the economy as examples — are more important considerations. But that choice should be made based on what actually happened (and what didn’t), not on fanciful tales about overthrowing the U.S. government.