comment: >
  
  They asked what was so complex. Have you seen the fuckery the last Trump appointee made a la Aileen Cannon? That answers the question. People like her make this complex.
context: No one on reddit can know for certain what the DOJ is doing, but there are several good reasons it could take so long for an indictment despite the amount of evidence that is publicly available:
  
  
  For any charges that involve witnesses who talked to the January 6th committee, the DOJ had to wait for the transcripts from those interviews. There are likely to be differences in what the witnesses told the DOJ vs congress - they'll recall different details or respond differently to similar questions. Any defense lawyer will use such differences to accuse the witness of being unreliable - the DOJ needs to resolve them up front so they're prepared.
  
  
  When the DOJ indicts someone, they have to hand over their evidence (Brady material). Due to this, they have to be careful about indicting people close to Trump while their investigation into Trump is ongoing* - they risk tipping their hand on what they've found, or who their sources are. Similarly, they don't want to indict Trump yet on, say, the classified documents at Mar-a-Lago if they are still gathering evidence to search other properties, or learning what exactly Trump did with the documents.
  
  
  Frankly, if Trump is indicted and just one jury member is a die-hard Trump supporter, conviction may not be possible. In that case, the real outcome of the trial will be all of the evidence that is made public. In this case, letting the investigation continue as long as possible is the best way to maximize the amount of evidence the DOJ can make public. 
  
  
  
  *This is why it's a big deal when we learn that someone in Trump's circle has changed lawyers. He pays for other's lawyers because that lawyer is then handing information back to Trump. Getting their own lawyer strongly suggests they turned on Trump and don't want to share information with him anymore. >
  
  Thank you for laying this out I knew there would be a lot of steps but wow! >
  
  What is so complex?  Did he do it?  Yes. Can we prove it? Yes. Prosecute! >
  
  The complexity lies in ensuring an unappeallable conviction. You have to annihilate ANY and EVERY possible defense that can be brought by his team to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. >
  
  Isn't that always the case? >
  
  How many criminals other than Trump have been able to appoint multiple corrupt justices to the Supreme Court, along with numerous judges who embrace far right-wing ideology? >
  
  Except that wasn't the argument being made.