What would be needed for the DOJ to start criminal proceedings against Trump and his top people?

[Poiuyt]

1) I'm talking about sedition type charges relating to the Jan 6 insurrection.
2) I'm aware that we don't know what the DOJ is doing and that they might have already started.

So, are they waiting for the House Select Committee to finish their work? Can the DOJ work concurrently with the House?
Have enough facts come forward recently to at start an investigation on their own or least raise some eyebrows over there?
Is there one "smoking gun" that they're waiting to uncover, or would the deluge of evidence that seems to be coming in be enough to get them to open an official investigation?
Is this one of those things where the government would need to prove intent or other nebulous factors?

Obviously, I'm not an attorney and don't know much about these kinds of proceedings. But sometimes common sense tells us that a big crime has been committed against this country, and I feel it should be prosecuted.

[brooklynite]

2. Answer: Actual evidence

Did Trump call for people to invade the Capitol in his Jan 6 speech? No. ("we know what he meant" isn't convincing to a Jury)

Did someone state that Trump wanted people to invade the Capitol in planning meetings? Name the person and the actual evidence supporting that claim.

Did Trump tell any military/law enforcement not to intervene when the Capitol invasion started? Name a witness.

See how criminal justice works?

[FoxNewsSucks]

5. I think reply #1 may also have something to do with it

Mueller left a "roadmap" for prosecution of multiple charges of obstruction against MF45 & his corrupt admin.

Evidence was there, outlined and ready to go. Yet Garland has apparently sat on it.

[Hoyt]

11. Mueller wimped out just like Fitzpatrick. Mueller left no roadmap.

[FoxNewsSucks]

13. Yeah, he definitely wimped out with that 'no indicting a sitting prez' thing

But he did state that his report, which Barr suppressed, contained everything needed to prosecute MF45 after he left office. Until we see that unredacted report (which Garland has) we'll never know for sure.

Fitzgerald was a different situation. Darth Cheney's chief-of-staff obstructed so much that the only charge he was able to bring was the obstruction charge against Libby. It's conceivable that Fitzgerald was "in on it", but I haven't seen anything that would indicate that was the case. Cheney was pissed off that Bush didn't pardon Libby. Years later, MF45 did.

[Hoyt]

17. Well, Mueller said something like "we found no evidence" over 20 times.

He even let those at trump tower meeting off by saying they were too stupid to possess requisite “intent” to break the law.

Mueller padded his retirement and didn’t put effort into it. He even had two chances after the mealy mouthed report to set things straight. He wimped out again.

[Septua]

14. Mueller played by the rules...

He gave a lengthy explanation relative to the past practice of not indicting sitting presidents.

[Poiuyt]

7. I guess my question is: Which comes first, the evidence or the investigation?

How do you get evidence if you don't investigate?

I'm sorry if my questions seem naive.

[brooklynite]

8. If you investigate you don't share your evidence with the blogosphere...

...you wait until you have enough evidence to go to a Grand Jury.

[WarGamer]

15. You're right... factually correct.

[Thomas Hurt]

3. Completed investigations that produce solid evidence of US Code violations, grand jury indictments

[Tribetime]

4. Probably another act of violence directed by TFG

That directly affects the justice department

[sop]

6. Trump could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue on live television and he wouldn't be prosecuted.

[triron]

9. That's the least of it. He's done far, far worse.

[Upthevibe]

10. Kick. N/T

[TreasonousBastard]

12. I don't think any of the big shots in this know what they're doing...

Not that they are lazy or unintelligent, but this is entirely new in American law and no one is on firm ground.

I imagine those Framers way back then actually thought about some lardbucket pushing his way to the White House but shook their heads "Nah, never happen". And with the protections they wrote, they were probaby right.

But, then came Trump...

[brooklynite]

16. But apparently the complaining blogosphere does?