>

I've been hearing them say this for the past few weeks. Either indict him or don't.
It could? It should! But let’s hear about it again when it’s done, yes? >

I have been seeing "Trump could be indicted" posts for years. I really don't want to see anything else about it until it says Trump has been indicted. >

I feel like we will still be seeing “Trump indictment imminent” articles a decade from now, assuming he lives that long. >

Or it could be in a year. Or it could never come at all. I grow very tired of the speculation regardless >

The DA's office said a decision was imminent and that releasing the findings of the report would jeopardize peoples rights to a fair trial. I am ALWAYS the first to say "whoaaa slow things down", but that language is actually something to have your ears perk up about. >

The wording from the judge is interesting as well:

At the close of the nearly two-hour hearing, McBurney emphasized the unique nature of the issue, saying, “I think the fact that we had to discuss this for 90 minutes shows that it is somewhat extraordinary.”
“There’ll be no rash decisions” he said, adding later: “No one’s going to wake up with the court having disclosed the report on the front page of a newspaper.”

According to the DA, the special grand jury has recommended multiple indictments.
Seems likely Trump has been recommended for charges by the special grand jury (not that this should be a surprise). I can't see why the judge would be talking "extraordinary" circumstances, or giving pause to a huge media reaction otherwise. >

It could also be that they're not recommending anything against Trump himself, and letting the press know before indictments of his cronies would jeopardize that part of the process. People are really reading what they want into this. It's extraordinary because a former President was involved at all. Don't do to this what everyone did to Mueller. And then the impeachments. And then Garland. Assume justice is broken until proven otherwise, and you won't be disappointed. >


Don't do to this what everyone did to Mueller. And then the impeachments. And then Garland. Assume justice is broken until proven otherwise, and you won't be disappointed.

It's not exactly surprising to assume the special grand jury has recommended charges against the top target of this investigation. Especially when the DA has confirmed those exist.
But even with that, the DA still doesn't have to act on those recommendations. And even then - indictment isn't a "we got him - Justice prevails!" moment.
I'm saving most of my potential disappointment for after indictment, which I think is more than likely with the circumstances surrounding this.
Indictment would be historic against a former President, but it's only the beginning of accountability. We'll have pre-trial, trials, sentencing, appeals for 1-2 years after this - all while Trump could still never be held accountable.
There's such a long ways to go in any scenario. >

He could also run for and become president again while under indictment. I’m going to say he either won’t get indicted or he will and just stall until he gets a pardon from the next R president, which could be him! Pretty sad really. >

These are state charges. Can't be pardoned by a President.
Interestingly enough, can't even be pardoned by the Georgia governor as per the state constitution. >

Knew it too! I can be an idiot sometimes. Thanks for correcting me! Still can run for president though while under indictment. Idk if he’d be allowed on the ballot in GA though. Have to look that one up >

We all have a reason to be pessimistic, as we have indeed been hearing this for years, however...
This is specifically referencing the conclusion the special grand jury came to just now. This special grand jury made a decision on if there's enough for Trump to be charged with a crime on this. 
The burden of proof for a grand jury is low, but I still have my concerns. It's made up of lay citizens, like normal jury duty, and I just don't know how you can bring together a group of Americans who can make an unbiased decision on this in one way or another. 
And even if he is charged, the same issue would occur with a trial. What are the chances that at least one mindless Trumpy ends up on the jury? And all it takes is one dissenting juror to cause a mistrial.
But either way the decision has been made by this grand jury. So he's either going to be charged for this or he won't, and they can't delay that result for long. 
And one key thing to mention is....Trump and his lawyers should know the result by now. Don't you think he'd be bragging about being cleared if he was? >


What are the chances that at least one mindless Trumpy ends up on the jury?

Fulton County only gave Trump 26% of the vote in 2020. The potential jury pool is likely to be even less friendly when you consider that: (1) many Republicans/Independents have soured on Trump since then; and (2) voters who turn out for elections tend to skew Republican relative to the general population.
As for the DOJ charges, those are likely to be brought in DC. Trump only won 5% of the vote in DC. >

I will only click when it says “Trump Indicted!” >

Don't give Newsweek any ideas.  

TRUMP INDICTED  

Whoa!  click 

TRUMP INDICTED, "any day now, some sources say." >

TRUMP INDICTED!!!!
‘Will be the headline if and when he is indicted….here is a theoretical timeline…’ >

You'll never believe who might be indicted using this one weird trick!  Prosecutors hate him! >

Oh go piss up a rope with the “could” clickbait every single day!  
Does the newsroom just pass this turd of a story around and everyone groans their turn? >

Shit or get off the pot already >

Everyone is understandably cynical, but is this not pretty major news? >

Well, they've been saying stuff like this for months.  So, no. >

Its just frustrating to me because at the end of the day, trump is a shitty criminal. He is. He leaves evidence everywhere, he tells conflicting stories and even worse he tends to snitch on himself anyway like a couple months later. In terms of criminals, it should be very very easy to indict him. But these institutions are not just built to punish wealthy rich people like him. Its just infuriating. >

I’ll believe it when I see it. >

I could be “doubtful” >

Tell me when he’s convicted. >

I’ve been seeing this headline since late summer of 2020 >

yawn
Wake me up when it happens >

Any year now... >

“Could”?
Yawn… >

So the same as it's been for the last few years.
Let me know when it actually happens >

Oh shut up already.  Tired of immanent. >

I’ll believe it when I see it! >

this just begs "please click me"
been hearing this shit since the 80s lol >

I hope I live long enough to see it happen and I'm not old. >

Newsweek is so pathetic and thirsty for clicks.  Tired of hearing the same old bullshit. >

How do I short this stock? >

And I could win the lottery >

only 3 more years until they launch the $645,000.00 fine.  gotcha! >

It's like my room-mates college crush. 
You ain't getting any Brad, it ain't gonna happen, no matter how much she flirts for tutoring. >

"could be" means I don't give a fuck. It's not real until it actually happens. >

What's this, 6 years of the same headline? >

Feels like a good week for an indictment, but so did last week and the week before that. >

shit or get off the pot already. >

you can’t president from jail. >

I bet trump is going to try.  Crazy is his game.  With MTG as Vice. >

He deserves it >

Stop with the cock tease, Media. I want to see Indicted in headlines. >

Man guys, this time I’m SURE the walls are closing in.
Fuck you, call me when there are consequences. >

Yeah, we've heard this before. >

That's Rick Beato level clickbait right there. >

We GoT hIm ThIs TiMe BoYs >

Free beer tomorrow !! >

Trump will never be indicted. >

Place your bets…..Trump’s indictment or viable nuclear fusion? >

Fusion >

The ultimate distraction. Wonder what's going on over at the supreme court. >

Do it.
Brevity and succinctness are best friends of the writer. I have no need to say in additional words that it’s time to indict him, because it’s clear the time has now come. But a two word comment might be removed because it’s too short, so just… Do it. That should be enough word. Why use few word when more word redundant. >

just fn do it >

Georgia DA, Fani Willis, investigating Trump for the 2020 election interference, says releasing the grand jury report may impact defendants’ right to a fair trial. “Charging decisions are imminent.”  
It has been two years since the January 6 attack.  While AG Garland is the glacial reckoning that may, or may not happen, for Trump and those around him, a black female DA from Georgia might get it done.  If she doesn’t, or if Garland fails in his duty to hold Trump accountable, it will have a devastating impact on our democracy, sending a message to future autocrats and the world, that our democracy is up for grabs. >

Yawn.....blah blah blah I'll believe it when i see it. This was said since last year. >

Blah blah blah, either do it, or don't and show laws are only for the middle class and under >

These types of posts have been going on for so long that not only have we moved past believing that anything's going to happen soon, I'm now even tired of the comments saying that they're tired of reading these headlines because nothing's ever going to happen.
If it makes anyone feel better, none of this is relevant in the grand scheme of the universe. We're a little ants on our ant hill pretending like any of this matters. 
We all live, have some laughs and some cries along the way, and then we die. For this reason,  I don't care about mentally deranged trust fun baby anymore.  I just want to get drunk and eat some good pizza. >

Is this article from 2015? >

Ted Koppel? >

Could
Should
Might
Maybe
If >

Go, Fani, go!!! >

Hope that comes with no bail so we don’t have to listen to this lunatic every day. >

Even if he is indicted I have zero illusions that he will go to jail to await trial. >

I know, it is strictly personal fantasy. But legally  speaking, if the maniac were indicted on January 6th crimes, he fits both prongs of the bail test:1) he represents a grave threat to the public and 2) He has the means and motive to flee to avoid spending the rest of his life in prison. I can only dream. >

Honestly the threat he poses to America is probably the same whether he’s in jail or not. >

Not in federal system. He can be held in complete isolation except for attorney visits. It is called CMU- Communication Management Units. Terrorists, people that threaten judges and prosecutors, people that incite insurrection , generally people that do shit like Trump does everyday are locked up in these holes. >

Is that what Epstein was in when he died? >

Yes and no. Epstein was in a federal detention center as he was charged with federal crimes. However, he was on the floor where very high profile  or very dangerous inmates were held. A type of solitary confinement or close watch unit. Although Epstein did have a cellmate prior to his death, he was locked alone at the time.The two known CMU’s are at USP -Terre Haute and FCI- Marion (which is a former USP Supermax). >

i hate newsmax it's so wrong >

Jesus is coming soon too. >

The fucked up part is based on the headline I have no clue what crime this is referring to. >

More like imminever >

Came here to say I’m not gonna click that link Newsweek. Get back to me when it’s happening. >

“Could” 
Clickbait