The importance of this case has nothing to do with property damage and has nothing beyond surface appearance in common with the riots which occurred this summer. This is about rule of law and the constitutional order.
The rioters in that case were overwhelmingly opportunistic and their aims were criminal, not connected to a political aim. This is true even of the most 'political-adjacent' cases, e.g. occupations of police stations; these acts did not have an objective besides possibly 'sending a message' and were not supported by either political or (significant) activist figures.
In this case, the rioters attacked the national legislature while it was in session with the explicit intent to derail a legal and constitutional transfer of power. The attack was planned and premeditated with that political justification, and was encouraged by a political leader who would benefit from that derailment (there is also reporting, though unconfirmed as far as I know, that said political leader intervened to prevent law enforcement from intervening).
This is not difficult to see. It's you and people like you alone who are making an incredible effort to attempt not to see it to preserve your political worldview.
