Hahaha, well given that many of the predictions that the author made have failed to materialize or been proven wrong, I will take his analysis with a grain of salt.
I, admittedly, am no expert, but he seems to be relying on the concept that the motivation of the seditionists matter with some primacy, specifically creating a distinction between lawful authority and simply authority-difference supposedly being whether the perpetrator BELIEVED he was acting against a LAWFUL authority or against the actual authority. If they believed they were acting against an unlawful authority then they are innocent, i.e. motivation for their actions matters.
WELLLLLLLL there are some issues with that.
1. It is easy to claim that one believed something when that belief will get them off the hook for their actions.
2. Motivation is not as clear cut as the author claims. I would argue it is a matter for the jury to decide and a jury may be less accepting of the myth that the perpetrators didn't know they were breaking the law.
3. There is ALOT we don't know yet including all of the communications that the government has in their possession and who else is part of the conspiracy-I suspect at a minimum Alex Jones and Roger Stone will get swept into it, which will bring in members of -------- inner circle.
4. ------- is a known prolific liar and there was PLENTY of information out there decrying his lies, so to argue that people acted because of his lies and didn't or shouldn't have known better is a stretch
BTW here is the sedition law language: "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."
I do not see any language about LAWFUL authority, so I have doubts about the importance of the motive that the author hangs his hat on.
Again, this will probably be a matter for the jury and I can easily see them being convinced that the seditionists did act against the authority of the government. And since 1/6 is such an anomaly in our history and a dangerous precedent for the future, I can envision precedent setting convictions being obtained.
As an aside, the author linked to a June article he wrote that he says supports his current assertion. his June article was based on additional factors, like a lack of serious threats and coordination-well that was put to rest-especially when the conspirators were attempting a mass casualty event against members of congress and the sedition charges lay out a very detailed coordination plan.