There is room for hope. But the statute is really vague, and ripe for the picking by prosecutors , like the ones who were/are looking to pick on the J6 attendees. This is just the short version:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS22784/6
I thought in general that contradictions in the law should be interpreted to favor defendants.
A statute that is so vague that it can be used by political prosecutors to persecute their opponents is not constitutional in the United Stares. The Justices should rule the statute void and quash the indictments. Such statutes were used in the Soviet Union during the show trials and to fill the gulags with honest, decent people.
The worst part of the Jan 6 prosecutions is their arbitrary nature. Still, the Vagueness Doctrine might apply, although the DC circuit court upheld a similarly vague and arbitrarily enforced law in Agnew v. Government of the District of Columbia.
Here for the geniuses at the Harvard Law Review who oppose that decision bc, well, it’s raaaacist: https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/1766-1773_Online.pdf
Ya think the authors would see any application to Jan 6? Doubtful, as they see only the tips of their own noses, but the same logic should apply.