Things the film LIED about, to suit the political agendas of the filmmakers

https://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/trial-of-the-chicago-7/

The best thing about the film was drawing attention to a CORRUPT judiciary in the USA. Judges are not accountable to anyone, and disregard the rule of law ALL the time. Many judges litigate from the bench. In divorce and family court, they discriminate against men/fathers, and actively try to enrich both sides' lawyers.

Did the protesters who came to Chicago break the law?
Technically, yes... They were denied permits to march toward the site of the Democratic National Convention, as well as hold rallies in various lakefront parks and close to the convention site... Over the span of five days and nights, several thousand protesters defied the restrictions. They tried to march to the International Amphitheater where the convention was being held, among other locations, including police headquarters. The protesters also defied the park's 11:00 pm curfew.

Did the protesters "take the hill" and charge the police?
No... The police were not on the scene when the demonstrators charged the hill in Grant Park and began climbing up onto the statue and waving flags. It was only then that the police arrived to clear the protesters from the statue and the hill. This is depicted in the Chicago 10 documentary.

Was Jerry Rubin arrested after trying to prevent an attempted rape?
No... [T]here's no mention of him saving a woman who was being attacked...Rubin was arrested later when he was picked by police on a Chicago street and put into an unmarked car.

Was Jerry Rubin seduced by a female undercover agent?
No. The female undercover agent in movie...is an almost entirely fictional character... In real life, there were three undercover agents who infiltrated the demonstrators. An agent by the name of Robert Pierson became a bodyguard for Jerry Rubin. He posed as a member of a motorcycle gang.

Who was to blame for the violence, the protesters or the police?
In reality, they were both at fault to varying degrees. The movie almost entirely depicts the police as the aggressors and the protesters the victims... [T]here were indeed press and eyewitness accounts of police overreacting and indiscriminately attacking nearly everyone in sight, including reporters, as some officers seemed to enter into a state of panic. It didn't help that many of the officers had little training in riot control... Approximately 192 police officers were injured...The movie shows demonstrators throwing a few bottles that break near the feet of the police. In reality, individuals who were part of the 10,000+ demonstrators threw bottles, bricks, rocks, bags of urine and feces, and numerous other objects, including spiked golf balls (a golf ball with nails sticking out of it). Officers who were there described the scene as "chaos." They also tell of glass ashtrays that were dropped on them from hotel windows high above. Bricks were thrown at police cars and the windows of patrol cars were smashed. Nail-spiked rubber balls were left under their car tires. Though we don't really see it in the movie, the demonstrators punched and physically fought with the police as well. They also inflicted damage to private businesses. -The San Diego Union-Tribune- Even in calmer moments, demonstrators repeatedly called them "pigs" and some got in officers' faces and tried to provoke officers to shoot them. They touched and pushed officers.

Was Bobby Seale tried with the others because the prosecutors thought a black man would scare the jury?
Not likely... [Seale] had only been in Chicago for two days of the convention as a short-notice replacement for Eldridge Cleaver... Seale, the Black Panther Party Chairman, was charged with inciting a riot because of a speech he gave in Lincoln Park during which he called for violence against police.

Did Black Panther Co-Founder Fred Hampton give advice to Bobby Seale during the trial?
No. There's no record of Fred Hampton being there.

Was the prosecutor Richard Schultz, portrayed by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, sympathetic to the defendants?
Not at all... the very opening scene of the film is heavily fictionalized, among others.