claiming insurrection and sedition on a pretty flimsy set of facts
Is it flimsy? I seem to recall a statement from the joint chiefs that characterized it as such.
Yes it's flimsy. Without a goal of overthrowing the US government these are an over charge. There are plenty of laws that were violated and charges that can be properly brought. Advocating for an overcharge is purely for political reasons. Nothing we've seen so far is insurrection or rebellion, and even for sedition we haven't seen the actual evidence (which is entirely within the private communications of those accused). The largest problem with charging sedition is going to be showing intent. Can you prove the intent of the protestors was to over throw the government rather than to hold it accountable or even demand it follow the Constitution? Maybe in your head, but we haven't seen such evidence. The mere fact of their actions doesn't show sedition, that required specific intents formed in advance.
Now that said, it is certainly possible that for some of those involved, sedition is going to be appropriate and provable. That would be the subset for whom the government can establish communication before the riot that planned specifically to use violence (i.e., ringleaders, if they had a plan in advance to storm the capital), expressly to stop Joe Biden from becoming President. It's weak sauce to argue that "stopping" a ceremonial step was as relevant (and if you consider it so, you've got a lot of explaining to do about literally thousands of other federal laws that protesters have routinely violated with violence over the years). It's hard to even explain how stopping that ceremonial step accomplishes anything. Most likely, those charges are going to fail on appeal (I'll grant a DC jury, which is where they'll try to bring charges and is 90% Democrat, will vote to hang any Republican even before they hear the case) unless there is something far worse that was discussed in private. And if there was no prior coordination about using violence to stop the counting of the votes, they shouldn't even get a conviction in DC.
Relatedly, you're not going to find any real evidence that
everyone or even that many of the people involved, even in the riot and certainly not in the larger group that were at the Capital building, had any plan at all. Most of them clearly didn't, as you can tell from their various selfies and general tourist like wandering the halls with surprised and stunned expressions on their faces. They got into the capital, they largely had free rein, and they did what exactly to "overthrow" the government or to implement a plan to stop the vote? Nothing.
99% of your belief about what they were doing is based on the choices of how that information is being presented to you. Historically, sedition is something that government has abused to prevent and punish criticism of itself. That is actually a large part of what is happening here. The desire to punish Trump supporters and those that oppose progressives on the left and to appear tough and to separate from Trump on the right are both aligning to push for sedition charges that there is not any fair or reasonable argument for being appropriate here based on the pubic record.
For reference, this is the general statute on sedition:
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
In short, you have to have a (1) conspiracy to (2) use force to (3) to conduct one of a host of horribles of which most clearly don't apply. The lowest bars - which are the only ones that could even remotely apply here - are to "hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States." Putting someone in jail for "delaying" a largely ceremonial step is pretty extreme.
To even do it, would require establishing that the charged individuals believed they could in fact through violence somehow prevent or even delay the certification of Biden. Not clear how that would work (and going to be impossible to demonstrate it could have worked, maybe even to demonstrate a belief that it could have worked) because at best they were stopping a ceremonial act and it is actually pretty unbelievable that even taking Congress hostage would have stopped it. But if they have communications from before the rally perhaps a case could be made. It's a stretch though. The way the media/DNC is hard selling the story is actually going to damage the case. The DNC/media can't help itself, they want to declare the rally itself, which is clearly protected political speech, as somehow itself inherently illegal sedition or insurrection. The larger that gets, the more skeptical the court is going to become about charges for sedition related to the same event.
Basing it on theft of property in the capital is a truly weak sauce position, and one that is grossly abusive. Those crimes should be charged under applicable law on theft.
For insurrection:
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, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
I don't believe the terms insurrection or rebellion are actually defined in US law. The typical thought among legal scholars has been it requires a full on rebellion with an actual intent to over throw the government and significant violence. That's not what happened here, not even close. Not aware that anyone denied the authority of the United States government. In fact, they were pretty clearly trying to influence the use of the authority of the United States government. Insurrection is much closer to what happened with the CHAZ/CHOP. There you had an area that purported to not be subject to the authority of the US, violently seized. We know they considered insurrection charges there and declined to bring them.
So yes, bringing this a sedition and insurrection is flimsy. There may be evidence that comes to light that makes sedition plausible for some people. However, a big part of the reason for wanting to bring those charges is to predicate an impeachment of Trump for inspiring them. If a few citizens have to be crushed along the way, so be it, they should have known better than to support the other side.