About that judges ruling which stated Trump more likely than not committed a crime?

There is probably a pretty good reason why no other judge had floated this idea 

To put this into some form of context, the issue at hand had nothing to do with whether or not Trump should or should not be charged with a crime. The issues was about whether or not the bone dry old Jan 6th committee had the right to more documentation to add to the forty seven tons of documents that they already subpoenaed from everyone and their brother. 

For the judge to authorize the continuance of this fiasco, some sort of crime had to pretty much be involved. Without the pretense of a crime, there would be no subpoena granted. This is a similar sort of logic that is used to garner any sort of search warrant or subpoena. Some "probable cause" that a crime has been committed. Had the judge determined differently then the committee would have been out of luck.

As far as the smoking gun claim that Trump committed a crime. That was based on a draft memo that was written (but never executed) suggesting that Mike Pence should reject the electors from a handful of contested states. This is not a bombshell, a smoking gun, or even anything particularly new. This is just a single judge coming down on the minority side of the legal analysis arguments as to whether or not what was done was "criminal". 

What is probably most telling about this is the lack of immediate responses from most legal analysts. Apparently it was not serious enough to even provide an opinion about. But the reality is that once again the legal left are apparently wanting Trump to be charged with an obstruction of justice that never happened. Much like they felt there was some sort of "intent" to obstruct justice in the Mueller probe in spite of the fact that he fully cooperated in every aspect of the law. The argument (in both cases) is that just because (congress or Mueller)  wasn't obstructed, doesn't mean that Trump shouldn't be charged with a crime for having some thought about possibly doing something. 

The reality here is that the draft memo was internal. The suggestion was never implemented. Moreover, there is still a disagreement about what legal standing Mike Pence did or did not have in that situation. 

But whether or not Mike Pence did or did not have constitutional authority to reject ballots would never had been a "criminal" question, but a constitutional question. Had he rejected the electors from the disputed states, had they gone to court, and had the USSC eventually sided against Pence, that does not mean that he would have committed a crime and be sent to jail. No more than Barack Obama or any other President goes to jail when the court finds an executive action unconstitutional.  His actions would have been overruled, not criminalized.

So given there is no chance that Mike Pence would have committed a "crime" if he exercised authority that the courts hypothetically argued that he did not have, there can be no chance that someone would have been aiding and abetting a criminal action for suggesting it. 

But more oddly, the argument isn't that Trump was trying to aid and abet Pence, but that Trump was the only person committing the crime. Again, apparently the fact that Trump believed that Pence had that authority is somehow now considered "the crime" here. This argument also requires the hypothetical idea that we already know how the courts would have ruled (when we don't) and that being wrong about that case would be criminal. The implication of this sort of ruling (if serious) would be staggering to say the least.  

This is quite literally a suggestion of a crime that goes looking for an action to justify the allegation. More to the point, this ruling was merely an excuse to allow the Jan 6th committee to continue their nonsense.