Everything falls apart once you acknowledge the bigger lie...

Democrats continue to suggest that 2020 was the first time that any candidate has ever questioned an election, made efforts to change the results, or had supportive protesters become violent.

According to the NY Times:

The question is whether the facts add up to crimes as alleged by a federal grand jury at Mr. Smith’s behest. Just as no president ever tried to reverse his defeat at the ballot box before, no prosecutor has brought charges for doing so, meaning there is no precedent for applying the statutes on the books to such a circumstance.

The first thing that comes to mind was the 2000 Presidential election between George W Bush and Al Gore. That was an election that was contested, protested, had multiple lawsuits filed. The lawsuits included the most famous suit that started in district court, but ended with the FSC ruling 4-3 to order a full hand recount and the USSC ruling 7-2 to stop it. But what was the point of contesting and protesting (both legal terms to challenge election results) and filing multiple lawsuits on top of that... all after the results were certified, if not to "reverse" the results? I can't think of any. Oh, and are we suggesting that people were not angry back in 2001 and that none of those protests ever turned violent? I seem to recall that differently.

John Kerry in 2004 challenged the election results in Pennsylvania. What was that if not an attempt to "reverse" the results?

There were multiple lawsuits filed regarding the 2016 election and there were election challenges filed in Wisconsin. In fact, there was a lawsuit filed where a judge ruled that the State had to turn over voting machines to have someone audit them for possible tampering. Had the Wisconsin results been overturned, Clinton and not Trump would have won that election. Were those lawsuits not an attempt to "reverse" the results?

Moreover, the amount of political violence that took place across the country after Trump defeated Clinton dwarfed the violence that took place on Jan 6th. More cops and more citizens were injured, way more damage was done, and across the country there were (at least initially) way more people arrested. If not for the FBI still tracking down people who help up signs too close to the Capital building, we would have had very few actual arrests on Jan 6th for true violent behavior. The vast majority of Jan 6th defendants were just there protesting and did nothing violent to anyone.

What is going on here is more than just a willingly bad memory on election challenges. What is happening is an attempt to float around the idea that the challenges along with protesters was something akin to a "coup" attempt. Which could describe any of these previous elections where lawsuits were filed and people got violent when things didn't go their way.

Moreover, this is tied to the unprovable lie that those protesting at the capital that day had some grand plan to "overthrow" the government. The FBI has quietly concluded that no such effort existed. They found that there was no coordination between protesters. There was no plan in place and that close to 90% of those arrested for violence were there just to protest.

In fact the Harvard Harris study that included interviews with over 400 people who either plead or were found guilty of breaching the capital and found less than three dozen who had any intention of "obstructing the count". Most just entered the capital through open doors and never harmed anyone or anything. Many were not even aware that anything was supposed to be happening at that time.

Oh and we also know that the Jan 6th committee added the audio to the tapes that included people "shouting" about hanging Mike Pence.

The idea that 100's stormed the capital to stop the count, hang Mike Pence, and take over the Government is morbid fairy tale concocted with lies, political rhetoric, hate, fear, and spin. It simply is untrue as a matter of practical fact. Only the illusion holds in place for liberals that this was what the people were doing. But in order to maintain this illusion, it needs reinforcement. That is exactly what Jack Smith is doing with this indictment. Pushing the liberal narrative that the challenges to Biden's win and the subsequent protests and one single riot was completely unprecedented... and therefor can "justify" unprecedented charges against the bad orange man. We all know the hateful nature of those who support this sort of weaponization of the government.