Of course, that's part of it. But there's a more fundamental – legal – reason it could not be done right away.
Q told us early on, in post #14.
What is "state secrets?"
From QRV:
https://files.catbox.moe/snptyp.pngPNG
Another anon brought up this meme. Interesting. I remember reading that Q post, but it did not click with me at the time.
Here is a 2006 paper on "state secrets" and how upheld by the Supreme Court.
https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1174&context=lawreview
Bottom line: A contract to engage in espionage is a "state secret," per se. If a plaintiff sues the US government or any department or individual working for it, and the defendant (US gov't or other) claims "state secrets," the case can be DISMISSED WITHOUT TRIAL. This means that NOBODY can sue to be compensated for or even find out ANYTHING ABOUT any act of espionage, whether legal or illegal.
The SCOTUS stated in a case in 1953 that this should only be used in very rare situations. However, the government (naturally) doesn't care about that. They have been expanding it and getting cases dismissed using this tool.
Let's suppose Christopher Steele had a contract with the CIA to dig up dirt on Trump. The entire thing was a fabrication. None of it true. NOBODY can take legal action (not even Trump) to expose it or seek compensation for it, if the US government or Steele raises the "state secrets" defense and the court agrees.
Or, expand it further. Let's say someone in government harms someone. The harmed person sues. If there is even ONE classified document that the plaintiff would need to prove their case, EVEN IF THAT DOCUMENT IS FALSELY CLASSIFIED, then the case can be dismissed and the plaintiff has no legal recourse.
Think: General Flynn
Anyone familiar with Sibel Edmonds? She was an FBI whistleblower, claiming that rogue FBI agents were engaged in espionage against the American people. The FBI fired her. She sued. Her case was dismissed because of "state secrets priviledge." Her book is called "Classified Woman."
Arar v. Ashcroft - a Canadian citizen was apprehended by US officials at JFK airport. He was sent to Syria and tortured for almost a year. He sued. The case was dismissed, though the judge side-stepped the state secrets issue. Point is: what if YOU are the one falsely accused of doing wrong, are kidnapped and tortured, and then released, and you cannot get legal redress because of a bogus "state secrets privilege" by the government that did it to you?
Ladies and Gents –
THIS is why the trials could not take place right away. The deep state operatives within the DOJ and the courts would have conspired to prevent not only any convictions, but to PREVENT ANY TRIALS TO TAKE PLACE AT ALL, by using "state secrets privilege."
The civilian courts and departments needed to be cleaned up before any trials can take place. Q implies that trials will be held by the military. If so, the military will need documents from the CIA and other non-military departments, and they cannot be obstructed by dirty individuals inhabiting the swamp.
Rooting out the rats was always priority #1.