No. For one, that protest was during the nomination debate, not the actual swearing in by the Chief Justice, so not a transition of power. It was also not a violent mob.
It absolutely a differentiator that the Jan 6 scenario was a violent mob forcing their way into the Capitol to overturn an election. No amount of semantic judo or whataboutism will make the utter brutality of that mob equivalent to a nonviolent protest.
Finally, the Supreme Court nomination protesters were arrested for when they tried to block lawmakers from getting to their offices. They are no different in their manner of protest than nonviolent pro-life/anti-abortion protesters who have obstructed members of Congress at the Capitol, and neither are like the Jan 6 perpetrators.
If you watch the most violent parts of all of those protests, it's hard to understand how smashing a police officer's face in a door and beating another with a fire extinguisher can be considered equivalent to holding open an elevator and shouting "shame" at a Senator.
>People physically invading the halls of Congress and threatening lawmakers are doing something fundamentally more powerful, and also illegal.
So the insurrection-ness of a protest/riot increases during "lawful transitions of power"? Suppose this premise was true, does that mean something like this[1] is also an insurrection (or "almost [...] a coup"), because it happened during a "lawful transitions of power" for a supreme court justice?
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/28/brett-kavanau...
>A bunch of angry protesters shouting in the demonstration area have no leverage beyond drawing media attention to their cause.
Sounds like you're agreeing with me. ie. you can't cite "anger of the people outside" as a potential reason for "reject the vote certification".
>People physically invading the halls of Congress and threatening lawmakers are doing something fundamentally more powerful, and also illegal.
Not disputing it's illegal, just that it's not an "insurrection".
>I didn't say which crimes. It makes far more sense to roll up low-level offenders with lesser offenses to build cases against higher level conspirators.
What are you saying here, that the lack of prosecution for insurrection is totally consistent with an "insurrection" taking place, because they'll eventually work their way up to the real conspirators and charge them with insurrection? Well, it's been a year now, and nothing resembling an insurrection charge has surfaced.