Yes, you did. Even if you think you can confuse the situation by claiming that adversary doesn't mean what adversary means. Not all interactions between government employees and civilians are "adversarial". You want a new word, not to claim the old word means whatever you say it does.
> An opponent; an enemy.
> In law, having an opposing party, in contradistinction to unopposed: as, an adversary suit.
https://www.wordnik.com/words/adversary (go ahead and find a definition that means "person of interest" or "investigative lead"; you won't, because that's not how people use the word)
> I think I see where you’re getting tripped up.
When you use a word wrong, it's not on others to understand your intended meaning. You didn't mean they became an "adversary of the state". Others' interpretations of your use of the word "adversary" has been, of course, reasonable.
> My mention of federal obstruction was just an example to illustrate why the FBI might be investigating at all. It was a hypothetical meant to show that the investigation likely concerns criminal activity surrounding the protest, not the protest or his speech itself.
Your mention of it was not an example. Why do you write like I can't simply go back to the original context? You first wrote "If you call lawful arrests 'kidnappings', don’t be surprised when the state treats you like an adversary." and justified it by saying "Speech isn’t the crime, federal obstruction is. That’s what they’re looking for." If you really mean that it's an example, then you want "could be" instead of "is".
Do you have any more bullshit for me to correct, or are you actually interested in understanding what words mean?