This is super weak and mostly for show. This kind of gish-gallop forgone conclusions may sucker the foolish masses during public tribunals, where you repeatedly gaslight what you think was people's motivations as if they are facts. Yet, lame impeachment hearing trick won't fly in a court, with established concepts of reasonable doubt.

Legally, there are several aspects to this....

It seems they planned a rather large protest, in efforts to sway the public and officials. Coordinating large protests safely is very difficult, requires a lot of planning, communicating, and enforcing strict rules for safety and to make a public impact that causes change, as all protests expect.

It seems whatever planning they were doing, was disrupted by Tarrio being arrested. From then on, it seems like "Person-1", "Person-2", and "Person-3" took over the leadership. They also were the only ones cited in the indictment as directly suggesting planning of anything illegal, such as storming doors, mentioning what seemed like advocating use of mace, and references to acting as a militia. Person-1 was the only one who made any direct statement of intent to disrupt the count, rather than just protest, by making the false statement that the count would be invalid if they didn't certify that day.

Person-1/2/3 have their names withheld, likely because they've turned state's evidence. They took over the leadership, seem like they might have encouraged it be more than just a protests at times, then became witnesses with court privileges. You have to wonder if this is yet another FBI led crime, like the Michigan FBI plan to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer, while entrapping a few people. Or maybe, when the Proud Boys' very expressly important leadership that was disrupted by Tarrio's arrest, these people co-opted the leadership and led it astray only to get a light plea bargain to setup those who they led.

The indictment makes it clear that they did not lead the breach of the Capitol Building. They claim a single unnamed person did first in an oddly vague statement. Despite mentioning they were near the front of the very massive crowd, the indictment goes on to explain how a large crowd the Proud Boys were not in control or influence had made all the main initial efforts to breach and enter, explaining how they were excited and mostly just followed the crowd. The exception being breaking into the window, which the indictment places squarely on one member. The crowd of non-Proud Boy random people flowing into the Capitol Building, likely were so massive, that they couldn't get to the door, making the window seem appealing.

The indictment fails to show any planning of a crime. It makes weak and meaningless references to using walkies talkies (I have a BaoFeng I use hiking), encrypted chat, like all of the Internet isn't encrypted, and meeting people about plans for a protest. The indictment mentions only the fed's witness mentioning entering the Capitol doors during prior planning. The indictment does not establish any prior planning with direct intention to illegally disrupt the electoral count, only to influence the public by protesting.

All the conspiracy charges and especially the conspiracy to obstruct a proceeding, seem not to have any supporting claims. One could assume the conspired only to legally protest and indecently involved in a large crowd's mayhem that ended up delaying the electoral vote. While they seemed to happily aid and abet this crowd's eventual result of delaying the proceeding, preventing cops from doing their duty, destruction of property, assaulting/resisting, and civil disobedience, while in the heat of the moment, the indictment does not establish prior planning of this. For this reason, without the establishment of prior planning to do these things and intent, there is no reason to charge all these people with each of these incidental criminal actions, instead of just each person who preformed that act. If they didn't plan to do anything but protest hard, then why charge Tarrio, whom wasn't even there, with all these charges? They could just charge individually, like then did with count ten, only charging the guy with robbery, who took the police shield.

It reeks of forgone conclusions and another round of irrationally trumped up charges, meant only for the news cycle, timed with the Jan 6 Committee's performance campaigning for the midterm elections with yet another made-for-TV tribunal.

Logically, there are several other aspects to this....

The public had many concerns about these election problems, but watched as their government, courts, and media communications, collectively conspired to downplay, ignore, deny and censor the problems they were concerned about. The public had plenty of reason to be upset about the election problems int he Covid mess of an election. They saw the immediate retribution and attacks towards anyone who questioned the election, tried to get it investigated, or participated in legally addressing the many problems. The public, likely felt like they were having their election stolen, even if they voted for Jo Jorgensen or Biden. January 6th was a massive, bipartisan, public uprising, as a direct result of the Banana Republic style refusal to take the public's election concerns seriously.

It seems the Proud Boys planned a rather large protest, in efforts to sway the public and officials. Coordinating large protests safely is very difficult, requires a lot of planning, communicating, and enforcing strict rules. We've seen the violent protesters and counter protesters attack others many times. Safety and not getting out of control are paramount to protesting. Radios, bull horns, strict rules of leadership and following directions are important. Most of the time, not just safety, but public perception of your protest impacts it's effectiveness to sway opinion and make real change.

This is a Constitutionally protected right to protest, which was cited when ultimately dismissing charges against a couple hundred of violent protesters who attacked the Capitol barricades during the 2016 election's electoral conformation, burned property, injured many police/security, and occupied a few nearby buildings. Most, they didn't bother arresting, but a group of about 250 of these 2016 anti-election rioters had real charges almost pressed against them. Prosecutors were urged relentlessly by politicians to drop the charges and eventually they declared the rioters, many violent and destructive, as just exerting their Constitutional right to protest. There were also many separate 2016 anti-election riots across the country on that day (as well as months prior and months after). Reddit users even coordinated what they openly called the "Day Of Insurrection", for January 20th, 2017. We saw a few Democrat politicians suggest being supportive of this planned event, during TV interviews, even suggesting that they have to get tough to be heard.

The difference, aside from their riots being much more violent, injuring many more police, destroying more property, being supported by politicians, and not being criminally perused for charges....was that on January 6th, 2017, the protesters were allowed in the Capitol Building. They protested from the visitors lobby, just outside the door of electoral count chambers. While one protester tried to quickly storm through the door and into the chamber, she/he was quickly grabbed and taken out of the building by security and bystanders. It happened so fast, there was very little video of it. The video showed on TV the day it happened and couple days later, was careful not to be shown again.

The things the same, include a protest that disrupted and delayed the electoral. Yes, the Jan 6th 2017 electoral count was disrupted many times by loud protesters....just outside the door.AP Video This along with time eaten up by 11 members of Congress unsuccessfully objecting to electors, caused the 2016 election's electoral count to be delayed and resumed another day in a special session. I remember, as Vice President Biden was presiding over the count, he was constantly yelling for "order" and barking over and over that "there is no debate!"

....during that special session, two protests, snuck into the chambers and sat along side members of Congress. At an opportune time, they both stood up and started shouting anti-election protest stuff within a couple feet of the Congress-members, before being drug out of the chambers. You can see it on video!

The plan to overthrow the election with fake elector votes didn't work out so well in 2016 either.