And people wonder why we're skeptical about DOJ prosecuting trump et al. Ask James Clyburn:

[Colbert]

77. The Big Difference

Realistically and pragmatically, there's a very big difference. The average juror doesn't recognize these names of the five that have been through jury trials:
Thomas Webster
Guy Reffitt
Thomas Robertson
Dustin Thompson
Timothy Louis Hale-Cusanelli
... all of whom were convicted on "lesser charges" (I hate putting it that way, but they're far short of sedition or insurrection) based on indisputable video/photo evidence of violent acts committed on the Capitol grounds, backed by eye witness testimony. They're nobodies without thousands, much less millions, of dollars to defend themselves in court.

Whereas, Donald Trump is someone who's name only the most clueless individuals would fail to recognize. He wasn't on the Capitol grounds on January 6th. He's beloved by his supporters, and if there's a single Trump supporter on the jury, it would take incontrovertible evidence that Trump directly ordered an overthrow of the government (and I have serious doubts that a Trump supporter would convict even under those circumstances). Plus Trump has almost a quarter billion dollars of fundraising to spend on his defense (more will come pouring in if he's charged).

I'm well aware that the latest polling shows that 3 in 5 Americans think he should be charged. The question is, "How are you planning to keep the other 2 in 5 off the jury?" ... and failing to convict only makes his influence stronger.

That's not to say he couldn't be tried on some lesser charge - like fundraising in bad faith ... but I don't see him ever being convicted of sedition/insurrection by a jury.