It doesn’t seem like that clause — no doubt the one prosecutors will cite in court — matches anyone’s definition of “insurrection.” It reads more like a federal form of obstruction of justice or resisting arrest.

Notably, the prosecutors have not charged anyone with insurrection, which is defined in Title 18, Section 2383 of the U.S. Code as: “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto.”

I mention this because the Senate minority leader, whom I much like, recently said: "Jan. 6 was a violent insurrection."

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, should know better as an officer of the court. No one has been found guilty of insurrection. There hasn't even been a single charge filed. No more rounds were fired, either by police or protestors, other for the one that killed Ashli Babbitt, showing that Capitol Police did not consider the situation was hostile.

McConnell served as president of the Student Bar Association while a law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law, where he graduated in 1967. Lawyer, judge, and elected official who has sworn to preserve the Constitution, especially the concept of "due process," is an excellent candidate for this position. His public remarks regarding the probability of criminal behavior should be more rational and based on facts than they already are.

"An indictment or complaint is only an accusation, and all defendants are assumed innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law," says the DOJ at the conclusion of every news release it issues on the subject.

It is not only a matter of debate etiquette that demands accuracy and factual support for claims. Some aim to exploit the events of Jan. 6, 2021, to disqualify possible candidates from standing for government.

Due to remarks he made on that particular day, the Board of Elections in North Carolina is trying to remove Republican Rep. Madison Cawthorn off the state's ballot.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars candidates who "acted in insurrection or revolt" against the United States from running for public office, according to election board officials, who challenged this in court. The submission said that "the state has the ability to regulate whether candidates should or should not be disqualified under section 3 of the 14th Amendment," notwithstanding the absence of any mention of trials, juries, evidence, or the presumption of innocence.

Republican Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana is under fire from a possible competitor who wants to have him removed off the ballot for a vote he made on January 6, 2021. The petition expressly addresses Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

It's a poor idea to let bureaucrats select who gets to run for government based on a speech or a vote — particularly without any valid procedure. Only a small number of Democrats voted to certify the 2016 election results, so this isn't unprecedented.

We live in perilous times, therefore clarity and accuracy in both speech and thinking are crucial.

The Jan. 6 demonstrators were misinformed about the legislation restricting the possibility of Congress or the vice president to modify the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. The outcomes of the election did not trigger any constitutional clause authorizing Congress to interfere in the result. The demonstration surpassed authorized borders, and people should be held criminally liable.

However, it was not an insurrection, and we should use caution in our words until a court of competent authority says otherwise.

Worrying about the past is a fool's errand and antithetical to the character of the United States of America. This country, luckily, has been established by individuals — from the voyagers on the Mayflower to the tremendously affluent teenagers in Silicon Valley — who look ahead.

Living in the past is a mistake. So is being mistaken about what occurred in the past.

Thomas won the 500 free by 12 seconds in a match against Princeton and Cornell, which was the fastest time in the NCAA this year. Thomas also won the 100-meter freestyle, 200-meter freestyle, and was a member of the winning 400-meter free relay team.

The only thing that causes one pause is that Lia Thomas, a transgender woman formerly known as Will Thomas, raced for the men's swim team at Penn for three years, most recently in November 2019.

Of course, the concept that a biological guy, with all the benefits of having gone through puberty as a male — such as stronger upper-body strength, greater cardiovascular ability, and so on — is competing against biological females causes a lot of anxiety. It's no coincidence that women are quicker in the water until they're approximately 13 or 14 years old. When it comes to puberty, men's timeframes are significantly faster than women's on average.

No one is ready to go public if there is a problem at Penn, the Ivy League, or the NCAA. One member of the Penn women's swim team said (without credit) that the squad is united in its opposition to Ms. Thomas' presence and blames the coach. "Pretty much everyone has complained to our coaches about not enjoying this," she told the New York Post. Our coach [Mike Schnur] simply enjoys winning.... Everyone, I believe, secretly understands it's the wrong thing to do."

Competitors don't appear to be bothered by the presence of a biological guy in a swim lane. They have not boycotted the events, nor have they lodged any complaints with the Ivy League or anybody else. The Ivy League has also offered no indication of what it plans to do to safeguard the integrity and fundamental fairness of women's sports.

The Ivy League and its member schools have all sorts of restrictions — ranging from academic eligibility to substance abuse to getting paid to play — on who can participate in sports. Why are there no meaningful restrictions on biological males competing in women’s sports?

That will very certainly become a live question in the near future. The NCAA swimming championships will be held in March. In a national tournament, having a biological guy crush biological girls is probably not a good image.

Ms. Thomas' best times as a woman at Penn are about two seconds slower than Olympian Missy Franklin's 200-meter time (about 13 seconds slower than the men's record), ten seconds slower than Olympian Katie Ledecky's 500-meter time (about 26 seconds slower than Townley Haas' men's record), and 56 seconds slower than Ms. Ledecky's 1,650-meter time. Those are impressive marks for the Ivies, which aren't known for producing Olympic swimmers.

Let’s be clear. It appears that Ms. Thomas has broken no rules. The question at hand is why have the NCAA and the Ivy League constructed a regime that allows biological males, who completed puberty as males, to compete against women?

Additionally, why is there no concerted effort among those who populate women’s sports teams in the NCAA to prevent this sort of unfair competition?

We have a good idea of what the answer is to that query. There is a basic disparity between the authority of administrators and activists and the power of female student-athletes, who may be inclined to reject competition between biological males and females. Many students, particularly those who are most immediately impacted, get athletic or need-based scholarships to attend college. This restricts their capacity to combat progressivism's whole architecture on its home field of academia.

However, there will be opposition at some point. Parents will raise objections. Fans and coaches will create a racket. Swimming World magazine has already pointed out the inequity. Others' opposition will become pervasive enough that the pretense will end, and the NCAA will be forced to take genuine action at some level of competition (maybe the championships in March, possibly the Olympics).

However, this will have no effect on the harm done to women in the meantime. It won't assist Ms. Thomas, who is merely obeying the rules, regardless of how absurd they are. It will also provide little comfort to those student-athletes who are biological females competing against biological men, or any feeling that the institutions supposed to assure fairness and equity care about either.