I’m also spitballing, but if Garland thought he had enough evidence to indict *and all-but-guarantee a conviction*, he would have done so a week ago, after the midterms but before Trump announced. Garland has plenty to use, I’m sure, but he has one chance and he can’t blow it.
I find it hard, when criminal jury verdicts must be unanimous and Trump maintains roughly 1-in-3 support (maybe only 1-in-4 now), to believe that there is any "all-but-guarantee" scenario.
Given the mindless level of support, I'm not sure that "evidence" will equate with "verdict". I'm sure that is the great fear at DoJ, too.
The correct take, I think. Wasted ammunition aiming for the nearly unpersuadable on either side.
I’m also spitballing, but if Garland thought he had enough evidence to indict *and all-but-guarantee a conviction*, he would have done so a week ago, after the midterms but before Trump announced. Garland has plenty to use, I’m sure, but he has one chance and he can’t blow it.
I find it hard, when criminal jury verdicts must be unanimous and Trump maintains roughly 1-in-3 support (maybe only 1-in-4 now), to believe that there is any "all-but-guarantee" scenario.
Given the mindless level of support, I'm not sure that "evidence" will equate with "verdict". I'm sure that is the great fear at DoJ, too.