It absolutely is not. Unless you're claiming that the 1/6 footage was all deepfaked and/or an Antifa false flag operation, the issue seems pretty unambiguous.
But where do you see "intent to violently usurp" in that footage? That's inaccurate and over the top rhetoric of exactly the kind you call out earlier.
I don't believe false flag. There may (or may not) have been agitators who were other then Trump supporters, but if so it wasn't too hard to do and a large number of Trump supporters behaved criminally. No argument with that. But it was not an "attempt to violently usurp the government" by any reasonable definition.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/nancy-pelosi-...
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters...
If it's "over the top", it's because what happened was over the top. The language I used is literal and accurate.
They are grasping at straws trying to build an (unreasonable) narrative.
Where are the insurrection charges in court?
No, what happened was a bunch of people were upset about an election they perceived as fraudulent and wanted certification stopped until an investigation was performed (also not reasonable, the electors had been certified at that point and it was done deal). Also Trump didn't help matters. Once the state electors were in it was over for him, fraud or no fraud. There wasn't reasonable time to audit anything and he did no one any favors by getting the crowd whipped into a frenzy.