You are just reiterating the authors claim that it’s not an insurrection because it’s an unsuccessful insurrection. There was a gallows set up, and people were chanting “Hang Mike Pence”. That counts as an attempt to violently remove an elected official. The Oath keepers had their own military strategists who had been planning for weeks to overthrow the government and replace it with their preferred leader. They have been charged with sedition because of it.
Perhaps you would prefer to call it a putsch rather than an insurrection? This authors has some interesting arguments for that position:
Attacks and Insurrections are still what they are even when they are unsuccessful. When you deny this fact, it is your position that requires us to accept that Pearl Harbor was not really an attack, not mine. Like the other commenter on my previous comment, you have confused Modus Ponens with Modus Tollens. More on this here: