if the democrat majority committee had any "smoking gun" evidence against Donald J Trump then there would be no debate as to whether to recommend charges or not
The issue is not whether the committee has assembled a criminal case against Trump and others. Raskin says they have, and that it will be explosive when presented during the televised congressional hearings coming up:
Jan. 6 revelations will 'blow the roof off the House,' Rep. Jamie Raskin says
The issue is whether the committee should refer the case to the Department of Justice with a recommendation to prosecute or simply release it to the public as a formal report without such a recommendation. It seems the decision to not do so is based in the belief that Garland intends to prosecute if he has winnable cases with or without a recommendation from the committee. The DOJ is likely doing parallel investigations which are either already on par with the committee's finding or that will simply take the committee's findings and add any new evidence to the DOJ's case. The reason is that prosecution after such a recommendation from the committee will be fuel for claims that the DOJ's prosecution was partisan and politically motivated, which will happen anyway, but why give the defendants and their supporters extra fodder for their complaint?
So you are blaming the lack of evidence on republicans?
What lack of evidence? Raskin promises that the evidence they have already will knock the public's socks off. I don't see him saying that if he and the rest of the committee don't believe that that is the case. He seems to be teasing the public now to increase interest and viewership in the upcoming televised hearings, like the advances on a movie.
Ask yourself this: If Trump et. al. are guilty of attempting to overturn a fair election and incited an insurrection in furtherance of that goal, would you consider that criminal? Would you consider it an attack on the United States? Would you want to see the guilty identified, convicted, and punished?
The answer to that from much of the country including most of the Republican party is no, they do not want that outcome whatever the facts. Such people no longer have any values in common with the others that think that such actions constitute crimes against the Constitution and that there ought to be a rule of law in play that applies equally to all citizens. If that is one's position, what does he have in common with people who oppose it?
