What Was the Solicitor General Thinking in the January 6 Argument?

There are a lot of angles to Fischer v. United States, the January 6 criminal case that was argued in the Supreme Court on April 16. Andy McCarthy has covered the argument, and I have my own thoughts to hopefully add at greater length another time. One thing about the argument really puzzled me: why Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar insisted upon distinguishing January 6 from other types of obstructive protests. I understand what, legally, she thought this would accomplish — but her approach runs the risk of being a disastrous misreading of the justices, and one that may have been driven more by the demands of her client than by a sound strategy for winning the case.

‘Otherwise’