None of those charges involved people using weapons to overthrow the government and United States military. So I'm rolling with the FBI assistant director for counterterrorism's testimony under oath before Congress.
You sound confused. What exactly am I apologizing for?
I think you are the one confused.
First, you claim there were no weapons. It was shown conclusively there was.
Second, you seem to connect the act of insurrection with overthrowing the military which doesn't fall into the definition of insurrection. And...Considering the percentage of Trump supporters in the military they would have surely fallen for the "the election was invalid" BS.
Third, you don't know the definition of the word apologist. To save you time, here it is:
a·pol·o·gist
/əˈpäləjəst/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.
"critics said he was an apologist for colonialism"
Hope this clears it up for you.
And when my grandkids are old enough, I will tell them about the attempted insurrection by a bunch of mentally challenged Trumptards (truly special people) who thought they could go storm the capitol, armed with bats and knives and a buffalo helmet, disrupt our democratic processes, install a new government, etc.