All good points, but I’d like to draw some distinctions and counter-arguments to what you raised.

Political speech is broadly protected, but encouraging people to show up on the day of the certification and telling them it will “be wild”, inspiring them to March on the Capitol where the vote was being held, and then never once telling them not to interrupt the certification all goes beyond protected political speech. We are showing that Trump FAILED to act, as much as we’re showing how his overt actions (including tweets) obstructed the certification.

In addition, we still don’t have all the facts and evidence on what Trump did behind the scenes in the days before Jan. 6th. The pressure he applied on Pence who oversaw the certification. His efforts to change electors of certain key states. That all goes to obstruction too.

I would distinguish your axe and WI examples in the following ways. Axes may be inherently violent objects, but nobody used them in that instance to destroy property or people (which happened on Jan 6th). And in WI, wasn’t the Governor Scott Walker? From the opposing political party to the protestors? That’s a very different scenario from Jan 6th where Trump was in power and incited the riot to hang onto that power.

I hear you on the risks of an acquittal, the political consequences of a weak indictment, and the overall risk to America in general. An indictment could even lead to riots or worse…

But given the evidence that we have not only prior to Jan 6th but on the date itself, it’s imperative DOJ sends the message that nobody is above the law. And unlike with Trump’s impeachments, the Republican Party wouldn’t be able to save him.