The people who run the government are leaning on their tried and tested, "maybe somebody else should do something" strategy.
The shift in the committee’s perspective on making a referral was prompted in part by a ruling two weeks ago by Judge David O. Carter of the Federal District Court for Central California. Deciding a civil case in which the committee had sought access to more than 100 emails written by John C. Eastman, a lawyer who advised Mr. Trump on efforts to derail certification of the Electoral College outcome, Judge Carter found that it was “more likely than not” that Mr. Trump and Mr. Eastman had committed federal crimes.The ruling led some committee and staff members to argue that even though they felt they had amassed enough evidence to justify calling for a prosecution for obstructing a congressional proceeding and conspiring to defraud the American people, the judge’s decision would carry far greater weight with Mr. Garland than any referral letter they could write, according to people with knowledge of the conversations.
I'm not sure why the bipartisan committee thinks the Dem-appointed Attorney General has more legitimacy even in the bizarre logical structure they've constructed in which only people who are beings of pure light can act.
To be clear, Garland has the real power here, of course, I'm just responding to the weird notion that doing an entirely appropriate thing for the committee to do would somehow jeopardize Garland doing the right thing.
Maybe somebody else should do something, says everybody who can do something. Hopefully somebody does something and then I will be owned and you can all mock me.