Sources are saying Trump indictments coming in 30-90 days.

[Joinfortmill]

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-indictment-predictions/

'The View's Sunny Hostin says Trump indictment is coming in 30-90 days — cites DOJ sources..'

'New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman said ahead of the announcement that the reason Trump wanted to announce so quickly after the midterms was that he thought it would make things more difficult for the Justice Department to indict him.'

'Alyssa Farah Griffin (former Trump White House assistant) agreed she's heard the same thing from her sources.'

Keep the faith. Indictments are coming (my words).

[tanyev]

1. A Christmas miracle?

[calimary]

2. Not soon enough!

I want them NOW. TODAY.

But I’ve been saying that since he got his hooks into our White House.

[lindysalsagal]

3. Already challenged on a previous thread. None of these sources are reliable.

[sarisataka]

4. "Sources"

Have been so accurate thus far...

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. But they haven't been "DOJ sources"

I question accuracy of that characterization.

Could be grand jurors or those connected to witnesses, but nobody at DOJ is going to risk their career to give a scoop to The View…

[Bobstandard]

27. Wait, nobody in the DOJ ever leaks?

nobody at DOJ is going to risk their career to give a scoop to The View…

Except, perhaps, for the folks described in this report:

Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz announced today the release of a Report of Investigation Regarding Alleged Unauthorized Contacts by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Employees with the Media and Other Persons in Advance of the 2016 Election. The DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated this investigation in response to information that came to our attention during our Review of Allegations Regarding Various Actions by the Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in Advance of the 2016 Election.

snip...

The OIG’s investigation into alleged unauthorized contacts by FBI employees with the media in 2016 resulted in separate findings of individual misconduct by three senior FBI officials, which the OIG previously reported. The OIG released summaries of our investigative findings in those three matters on October 16, 2018, on May 29, 2019, and on July 20, 2021. In each case, we determined that the senior official’s contact with the media violated FBI policies and DOJ ethics rules.

In addition to those three matters, we determined that dozens of other FBI employees had contact with certain members of the media who reported on non-public information about ongoing criminal investigations during the periods of the OIG’s investigation — April, May, and October 2016. However, the OIG was unable to determine whether the media contacts by FBI personnel involved the sharing of non-public information with media members who reported the non-public information.

[Fiendish Thingy]

34. As I said before...

Nobody in Garland’s DOJ, especially no one on the Trump investigations teams, is going to risk their careers to leak to The View. Garland’s hand picked leadership team in turn hand picked the investigative teams.

They aren’t going to leak, although as someone else posted, if the info reported on the view came from the investigations teams, then it was a planned, authorized press release disguised as a “leak”.

But I have seen no evidence to corroborate that possibility.

Otherwise, The View’s report may be stretching the truth on using the term “DOJ source”, if the source was actually a Grand Juror or someone on one of the witnesses teams. Those are are the most likely sources for leaks from GJ proceedings.

Now, the Clinton hating FBI in 2016, thats a different story.

[Bobstandard]

35. You may fave said it before, but not here n/t

[Botany]

5. Can't they do just one now so they can pick him up as a national security and flight risk?

I really want that man gone and his boss Vlad can die any day now too.

[dutch777]

20. Let's not be hasty, a Trump apartment right next to Snowden's sounds pretty good

GONE anyway legally possible is fine by me.

[Botany]

24. Maybe Vlad could let him live out his days in this Siberian "Fixer Upper."

[dutch777]

25. The Trump sign and snappy name would really dress up the place.

[Torchlight]

6. We'll see one way or the other what happens.

My guess is he eventually receives dramatically negative consequences from these investigations that will wind up in a plea deal, deflating the putz forever more.

I'm not going to scoff at anyone else's guess either though (beams in my own eyes are much more uncomfortable than the splinters in someone else's).

[blueinredohio]

7. I won't hold my breath.

[eissa]

8. I'll believe it when it actually happens

These "sources" have been repeating that line for years now.

[randr]

9. I've been hearing that for the past 30 to 90 days

[Fiendish Thingy]

15. Really? I've only heard that in the week or two before the election

Can you link to any DOJ sourced, or any sourced, reports earlier than mid-October giving the 30-90 day timeline?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

10. Is that 30-90 business days?

Anyone? Too deep of a cut?

[Tetrachloride]

16. Of the planets that needed to align, November 7 is the first accomplished.

I believe there are 2 more major planets to line up. Then the gates will open.

[FSogol]

28. Snort!

[getagrip_already]

11. A question for the garland faithful.....

At what point will you say "enough"? Election day 2024? Mid summer 2023? 30 days from now? 90?

What date is your final straw?

Just curious, because I'm all out of copium.

[Tetrachloride]

17. Feb 1. A single criminal indictment to start.

Someone has to be the lead driver.

[onenote]

26. Enough is when the experienced prosecutors feel they have a solid enough case to bring.

Despite what some here believe, there is no such thing as a "slam dunk" in any of the potential cases that might be brought against Trump. No one on this board knows what evidence DOJ has collected and presented to a grand jury, what evidence they are still preparing to present to a grand jury, what evidence they are still in the process of collecting, all of the defenses Trump's lawyers might raise to any of the potential charges that might be brought against him, and what DOJ knows and thinks about the strengths and weaknesses of those arguments.

This ain't TV folks. It doesn't get resolved between commercials in an hour. Or even in a season.

[getagrip_already]

29. So you are ok waiting past the 2024 election?

Just curious. There are statutes of limitations that will kick in by then.

[onenote]

30. Let me answer your question as follows:

DOJ isn't going to bring a case that they don't think they an win just because the statute of limitations is approaching.

In all likelihood, they will be in a position to know whether they have a winnable case well before then.

[uponit7771]

32. There have been a number of solid enough cases to bring against TFG, the SoL were ran out or they

... have not charged at all.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/president-trumps-staggering-record-of-uncharged-crimes/

[rso]

12. RSO

Actually, I’d rather Donnie stay free and loose for a while longer in order to finish destroying the GQP.

[ffr]

14. My popcorn is already stale, but I'll pop it if this bears fruit.

[Effete Snob]

18. No, they can't indict prior to Christmas

[chriscan64]

19. Do they have to wait for all the Special Master nonsense to end?

I believe that is Dec. 10th if I'm not mistaken.

[iemanja]

21. Because DOJ always alerts View personalities

[patphil]

22. I never expected an indictment prior to the new Congress being seated in January.

I still believe that will be the case. Trump's 2024 bid in no way prevents it.
I think Garland wanted to keep DOJ actions out of the 2022 election.
Of course Trump will call it all political if it does happen. Big so what.

[Kennah]

23. From Russia With Love

[Richard D]

31. Hopefully . . .

. . . they won't decide to wait until after the election to prosecute.

[Paladin]

33. When it actually happens, I'll be overjoyed. Not before. (nt)