>

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
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.