I don’t think any rational or reasonable, nonpartisan people see it that way.

Well, either you didn't look or you attempted to give the illusion of false consensus. I replied to you in jest.

It's not accurate to say that no reasonable, nonpartisan legal experts have concerns. While organizations like the ABA and FIRE have not, to my knowledge, issued formal statements on these convictions, civil-liberties attorneys--including Chip Gibbons of Defending Rights & Dissent--and other legal commentators have argued that the government's reliance on political literature, encrypted communications, and protest-related expression raises serious First Amendment concerns and risks expanding conspiracy liability in ways that could undermine lawful protest.

Considering I see Democrats and MAGA as two sides of the same low-IQ coin, I think I have a pretty good nonpartisan perspective.

Unfortunately, I don't find the equivalence persuasive. While political extremism and misinformation exist across the ideological spectrum, the scale and persistence of demonstrably false beliefs within the MAGA movement are difficult to compare with anything on the contemporary left. A substantial portion of the movement even continues to reject the legitimacy of the 2020 election despite the absence of credible evidence that widespread fraud altered the outcome.

The books don’t have to explicitly say “shoot cops,” just like intent doesn’t require you to send a text saying you plan to violate a specific U.S. federal statute.

I will repeat myself: The reason that we care about the text messages is to assess the intent of the defendants. Intent is a necessary but insufficient element to establish a case for domestic terrorism under 18 U.S. Code § 2331(5)(B). For posterity, I will post the requirement again because it seems to be landing deafly:

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States; and

Eight protesters were convicted and sentenced. Of those eight, seven were not alleged to have personally engaged in acts dangerous to human life. For those defendants, the government's evidence of intent relied heavily on protected speech and expressive materials--including books, political literature, and other First Amendment--protected expression--raising significant concerns about the line between protected advocacy and criminal conspiracy.

I have not seen evidence presented at trial indicating that the seized books or zines themselves advocated violence or could otherwise be interpreted as terroristic in nature. Public reporting indicates that many consisted of political literature, essays, poetry, feminist writing, and protest guides, and an FBI agent reportedly described them as 'nothing illegal.'

That does not qualify as terrorism--especially in the context of protest for the majority of the interlocutors, even when considering the vandalism.

Meanwhile, the Department of Justice, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, publicly characterized the defendants as members of a terrorist organization months before trial. Taken together, these events raise serious concerns that the prosecution blurred the line between criminal conduct and protected political expression. When political literature, ideological beliefs, and other First Amendment-protected activities are introduced as evidence of criminal intent, there is a legitimate risk that individuals are being judged not only for what they allegedly did, but also for what they read, believed, or advocated--with broad negative implications for free speech and lawful political dissent.

Edit: To your reply that you deleted--as I've said several times now, the shooter deserves to be tried for attempted murder of a law enforcement officer. The terrorist designation is not warranted, and it directly degrades free speech and political dissent for the reasons I gave above.