I've often criticized Jack Straw's decision to only Indict Trump and not the 6 other co-conspirator criminals: Giuliani, John Eastman, Kraken Powell, Jeff Clark, The Cheeseman, and drunken illegal Russian immigrant Boris Epshteyn. Straw appears to say it was for ease of presentation of evidence:
"Two points. One, as I said, we were considering prosecutions of these people, and I think --
I don't want to say what the ultimate conclusion of that would have been, but that was something that was being considered. The second thing I think to understand contextually is this was a case where the issue was how to present it in a concise way. We had so many witnesses, again, so many witnesses who were allies of President Trump available to us to testify. This was not a case where we needed more witnesses, it was a case where we needed to be able to present the case in a streamlined way because there was so much evidence."
I think what he's saying is that he didn't want to complicate an already incredibly complicated trial with evidence about other criminals (assumes they would all be tried together) and was going to indict the other scumbag liars after the Trump trial.
I'm not seeing any testimony about when Trump threw the plate of spaghetti at Giuliani and left him standing there like an object of humiliation. I think everyone avoided asking those questions of Straw because they didn't want to humiliate Giuliani further. And it's not really relevant either. Trump's constant abuse of Giuliani isn't really relevant to Trump's decision to create Fake Elector certificates or store Top Secret documents in his bathroom.