A contradiction?

[Novara]

14. If you find out later on that he was silent so he didn't jeopardize an investigation,

... will you admit you were wrong?

Prosecutors don't give public statements during ongoing investigations. They wait for indictments.

There are no facts you can report based on his silence. You only have inference, and you may be wrong precisely because you don't have facts. Just your impression.

Given that we are just now learning about how deep the rot goes via the J6 committee, that tells me that the investigation the DOJ is doing must be HUGE and very complicated with a lot of moving parts.

Merrick Garland doesn't have to rush into half-formed indictments that may fall apart because of haste just because people are impatient.

If Raskin has confidence, then I do too.

If Raskin is wrong and I am wrong and Garland doesn't indict, then I will admit I was wrong. But I feel strongly that the DOJ is working on building as tight a case as they can possibly build. If that's he case, we should all be more patient because the chances of conviction are much higher on that kind of case. If this is the case, it will be worth the wait.