>

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.
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.