comment: >
  
  It's our one chance to convict a true Benedict Arnold! Get the job done!!!
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. >
  
  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. >
  
  Maybe the comment above yours was, but that wasn't the argument you were making. >
  
  How is it not? I laid out two examples of the complexity >
  
  
  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.
  
  You said this which is expected for every case. The other user then used a strawman argument rather than actually supporting the case you were making. >
  
  If we prosecute him it would set a clear precedent for future election stealing attempts. Also, prosecuting lesser accomplices would send a message that if you do the crime, you will be the first to do the time.
  Doing nothing also sets a precedent.... >
  
  Totally agree.... >
  
  i wonder if the US will ever investigate trump's covid response. >
  
  wow! they've been busy...how is trump not in jail? >
  
  It takes a lot of resources to put away someone with a lot of resources. >
  
  the amount of resources the US government has had to use investigating a president must be staggering and unprecedented. >
  
  Not only is he a former president his criminality is egregious and ongoing. It's like tryna take down Al Capone and Nixon at the same time. >
  
  they put away poorer criminals a lot faster with a lot less evidence. >
  
  Putting up a legal defense and filing lawsuits and countersuits costs A LOT of money. Trump has been using his money to stall everything through frivolous lawsuits and countersuits >
  
  I am usually a totally negative shit in regards to the DOJ, AG and J6 stuff.
  So I am just going to make an observation based on what I see in Reddit threads.
  According to the negative folk in these threads:
  DOJ isn’t gonna do anything. 
  Half or more of the DOJ is sympathetic to the J6 crowd.
  Samsies with FBI.
  Even more sympathizers in DHS.
  All of the Secret Service supports MAGA.
  Special Counsel (or is it Prosecutor?) Smith will end up like Mueller.
  Merrick Garland will protect Trump, family and conspirators in the end. 
  Now that we have those fear based observations out there, can someone with a bigger more positive brain, tell us why we can actually maybe be at least a little hopeful, instead of sitting here in disdain, cynicism and doubt? >
  
  
  Special Counsel (or is it Prosecutor?) Smith will end up like Mueller.
  
  Very doubtful.
  Mueller thought a sitting president could not be charged. Smith doesn't have that problem.
  Mueller had Rosenstein restricting the scope of his investigation. Smith has a very wide remit.
  Mueller had Bill Barr killing his report. Smith doesn't have that problem.