I don't have any unique insight or predictions. Although I know the differences between the Mueller investigation and this one are fairly legion, I'm just commenting on the coverage that creates a sense of breathlessness in both instances.
No.
Luckily, the Jack Smith investigation is not like the Mueller investigation that was a fraud perpetrated by trump and his DoJ just looking at a little of the issues.
Mueller had the goods and made recommendations to indict however he did not have the authority to indict ....only to investigate. 7 recommendations to indict later tells us why the recommendations should have been
It is.
Except, you failed to note the coverage wasn't incorrect. The evidence was overwhelming and led to indictments and convictions. It explicitly did not exonerate Trump and laid out the facts. Commentators, including myself, noted the difficulty in bringing a case while Trump was President, because of a badly reasoned AG opinion and the corruption of Bill Barr.
I'm on record of May as indictment month, with one day to go, but this development probably spikes that. Soon, though. Very soon.
Strikes me that a lot of what Smith is doing now could be done after the indictments to "seal the deal" but I'm not sure if prosecutorial investigations are affected by an indictment.
I don't think he will. I think Biden will quietly weigh in on the matter. No way the American people will put up with 'another Nixon' scenario.
Mueller could have indicted on at least a 1/2 dozen obstruction charges. He said so in his report. But the DOJ says we can't indict a sitting president.
I agree. This is knitting up the edges. My biggest concern, frankly, is that there will be only one indictment, and that one solid case is delayed by a more difficult charge on the other offense. All-in-all, though, I think there are solid cases for obstruction in both cases. It's also possible that Smith has been granted an expansion of his original remit.
That thought had occurred to me as well.
Yes.
Did the statue of limitations run out?
