This was the guy who didn't enter the building, right? And they had tons of plans to...protect protesters, and no evidence they planned on doing anything more, just like the proud boys. I assume they had undercover cops running their group that day, too, whose actions were the main evidence?

The main accusation was that they got to the front of the protesters one time...but not really that they entered first, or lead the path inside. It's just said in a twisted way so you assume that was what was meant. Another non-standard case with no evidence and that same creepy judge that makes ridiculously incorrect manipulations of the cases he sees....and of course gets all these political hit-job cases.