What we understand from today’s Mr. Garland’s words, accumulated with the evidence collected by investigators from Trump's closest associates about how they bagged him to go live and to call the rioters to stop the violence in real time during the January 6 event -action that could stop the violent attack and that Mr. Trump refused to take- is that this will be the legal evidence that will lead to the criminal charges against Mr. Trump for not stoping the violence, as the only one who could do it. That by (not) doing so, he actually violated his oath, to protect the US constitution.
In other words: a criminal charge that would lead Mr Trump to prison.
We do not claim that this is what is directly said in Mr. Garland‘s speech, but that's what we hear as a conclusion of his words and what is publicly known about the evidence collected about the January 6th event so far.
In that case, this is not a going to be a fictitious persecution of a political revenge, but a well build legal structure of circumstantially evidence that leads as a trier of fact to the unequivocal conclusion. The conclusion that the former president has a personal responsibility for the results, if not for the January 6th events, because he would be blames to be the only one who could stop the violence in real time, and deliberately, did not.
This is not what has been said, this is what we hear in between the lines.
It may not be smart to do it, socially wise, but no one can blame that it would be wrong or fake, legal wise. It would be the right thing to do, but not necessarily a smart thing to do. It will divide the US even more and in a way it would delegitimization 50% of the American voters. So from the single legal-prespective, it would be right, but from all other dimensions (social, unity, peace and public trust), i am not sure thats the right thing to do.
The full speech is here and it’s worth listening to all of it.