The short answer here is YES. However, indicting a past president with criminal liability would be complex, despite the mountain of evidence piling up against Trump for trying to steal the presidential election by overthrowing the legal election process in Congress. Yet, for the legal system to be trustworthy, and shown as a viable working system, the Department of Justice may have to step up and change the course of American history.

The January 6th House Select Committee hearings brought shocking testimony and evidence to the American public, beyond the expected results of the deadly insurrection on Capitol Hill.

Now, both Trump's and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadow's chances of being charged with crimes are growing. Here’s why.

Beyond the wild stories of President Trump demanding to be taken to the Capitol to be with his “MAGA” supporters and his alleged violent attempts to grab the steering wheel to turn his Presidential limo around to join the riot, numerous pieces of evidence turned up during the live hearings broadcast on TV, viewed by 20 million viewers.

Glaring evidence was unveiled during these hearings, including fake slates of electors being pushed via White House Aides to the Vice President’s team, who would not accept them, and the well-established rioters’ actions on January 6 that resulted in five deaths and 138 injured officers.

The shocking twist in the evidence shared with the committee and the public is that Trump and Trump’s staff not only knew ahead of time that their MAGA supporters at the rally were carrying multiple types of weapons but also may have realized they would use these weapons to force the overturn of the legal election.

Yet, the president and some of his staff such as Meadows did nothing to warn police, the public, or anyone in Congress, including Pence, who was publicly threatened with being lynched. Many protestors were found to have weapons that day at the Trump rally, including guns, knives, poles, and more, including rope long enough to hang someone.

On the scene at Capitol Hill, a noose was set up supposedly for Pence that day, as shared by protestors and journalists on social media and video.

The House Committee has been straightforward in building a case against former President Trump and others, well before the explosive testimony of White House Staff Cassidy Hutchinson, who worked for Meadows.

Hutchinson painted a stunning picture of Trump as a leader who was angry, dismissive of the violence about to occur on Capitol Hill, and uncaring about the death threat against Pence.

As early as June 21, the Committee reported Trump acted in “illegal” and “unconstitutional” ways, using a seven-part hit list created to overturn the legal presidential election. The panel asked the Justice Department to charge some members of Trump’s team with seditious conspiracy, including Attorney General William Barr.

Neal K. Katyal, former Acting Solicitor General serving under President Barack Obama, told the New York Times that “the committee, especially Liz Cheney, outlined a powerful criminal case against the former president. A crime requires two things — a bad act and criminal intent.”

Attorney-General Barr testified in the committee hearings that Trump had been notified on January 6 that he had indeed lost the Presidential election numerous times by himself and numerous staff, numerous times, yet refused to act or make any statement at the rally or when he was told his supporters were violent on January 6. Both of these actions could go to show intent and a bad act by Trump.

Now, new bombshells Hutchinson dropped during her testimony this week may connect the dots enough to indict Trump. Hutchinson calmly shared seeing and hearing Trump being notified of the highly armed MAGA supporters at his rally right before they marched to the Capitol, and the dangerous likelihood they would become violent since they were holding many types of weapons.

During Trump’s rally, protesters with weapons were avoiding “magnetometers” (metal detectors) set up at the rally, so the administration knew about weapons on hand. Trump told the team to take away the magnetometers so the weapons would not be tracked anymore.

"I don't effing care that they have weapons — they're not here to hurt me," Trump said, as Hutchinson testified. "Take the effing [magnetometers] away and let my people in.”

Yet knowing full well his MAGA supporters were armed and angry, he then told them to "fight like hell” and overturn the legal presidential election.

Since he knew about the weapons and encouraged the crowd to “fight like hell,” his words could possibly be seen as incitement to riot.

Trump allegedly then fought his team to join the protesters, against his Secret Service detail, since he knew he’d be safe with the protestors, according to Hutchinson. These actions may lead to a conspiracy charge, or even more because Trump knew that violent force was part of the protester's plans since they were looking to overturn the legal election’s votes in Congress.

As per the serious death threat against Mike Pence, Hutchinson’s boss Chief of Staff Mike Meadows allegedly told her that Trump knew people were planning to hang him but said Trump he "doesn't want to do anything” and that “these are his people” and that "He thinks Mike deserves it.”

Other major crimes Trump may be charged with include obstruction of a congressional proceeding, trying to overturn the certification of the Electoral College vote on January 6, and incitement to riot.

The House Committee is building a case, piece by piece, against Trump, who they believe should be charged for crimes relating to the overturning of the election by using fake slates of electors; telling the nation he had won states that were clearly legally won by President Joe Biden; telling Pence to use the fake slates of electors; and telling Pence to refuse to certify for Biden, and instead certify for Trump.

The next action federal prosecutors would have to take is to gather all the evidence and decide if they can charge Trump with criminal liability, proving intent and premeditation, and trying to obstruct Congress.

How would the Department of Justice win a case against a former president?

Obstructing Congress from certifying the legal election would make for the simplest case. At his rally on January 6, there are videos and other evidence including sworn testimony that Trump was told he lost the election numerous times by his Attorney General, family, and vice president; wanted to stop the legal certification of the election process; that his attorney told Trump that Pence could NOT legally stop the certification to the election and that evidence including emails and memos prove it all.

Add the damming evidence shared this week from the Hutchinson testimony and others, and it seems like a slam-dunk. Trump knew about the weapons his MAGA protesters were carrying; refused to issue a statement when staff, public officials, and even Fox News asked him to stop the violence; had an aide try to deliver a fake slate of electoral votes to Pence (his aide refused) and more.

A president has never been charged with such crimes and found guilty. The US legal system has never had to put the legality of whether or not a president can be charged with crimes committed when he was a sitting president.

Faced with epic evidence that this president did break the law and try to overturn the legal presidential election, the Department of Justice must step up to its legal duties, if only to show the nation and the world that our legal system is legitimate and still working.