I think everyone should find Judge Luttig's remarks, as it clarifies what I believe is an inaccuracy reporting the the "crime".
Judge Luttig believes the phrase "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same" refers to the Constitution, not the United States. He argues you don't have to prove Trump led the riot, or incited the riot, etc, but rather prove he conspired to subvert the Constitution itself by concocting a plan to retain power in contravention to the Constitutional process.
Looks straightforward to me (of course after all the legal questions have been answered mentioned above).
I typed words to the effect in 2016, that every possible legal possibility Trump may subvert the Constitution be brought before courts, so all the legal questions would be preemptively answered for the eventuality Trump would actually act in direct contradiction to the Constitution. Seems I was correct in my thinking.
| 
