Ever since the Russia investigation began, legal experts have speculated as to whether or not Special Counsel Robert Mueller will seek a formal indictment against President Trump if the evidence implicates him.
Friday evening on MSNBC, former Watergate prosecutors Jill Wine-Banks and Nick Akerman told host Chris Hayes that the evidence already exists for Mueller to indict Trump. Wine-Banks noted:
“There is absolutely enough for an obstruction case, I’d be happy to prosecute that one. I think what people need to know is that putting a case together is like putting a puzzle together and you don’t have all of the pieces at once. You build them one at a time and circumstantial evidence is often more persuasive than direct testimony — if I see someone come into the room dripping wet with an open wet umbrella, I can circumstantially conclude that it is raining outside and I will be convinced that it’s raining.”
Wine-Banks then commented that Mueller doesn’t actually need a “smoking gun” in order to obtain an indictment of Trump:
“We returned the indictments that led to the convictions before we had the smoking gun tape. That was a very dramatic piece of evidence, but it’s not necessary.”
Akerman concurred fully with Wine-Banks:
“I agree with Jill totally. There is enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump.”
Keep in mind that when indictments of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his business partner Rick Gates were handed down in late October, other sealed indictments remained on the court docket, meaning there are more shoes to drop in the case. Might one of those remaining indictments carry the name Donald J. Trump? Based on what we know about the case so far and the words of these two Watergate experts, it now appears Trump will indeed be indicted or named as an unindicted co-conspirator. When that happens, calls for impeachment will begin on both sides of the aisle.
This article was originally published by the same author at LiberalAmerica.org