Aware of what the New York Times reports is the fact that “it would be nearly impossible to find sympathetic jurors in” the DC federal court circuit “overseen by a federal judge, James E Boasberg, whom the Trump team regards as an enemy,” the convicted felon president’s DOJ team are instead trying to impanel a grand jury for their “case” in South Florida, the implication obvious enough.

Equally obvious, even to the MAGA Reich, is that will be a complete dead end given both the statute of limitations and the Sixth Amendment. “Such concerns, however significant, have been swept aside, at least for now, by the eagerness to appease an impatient president demanding to use the vast powers of federal law enforcement to exact vengeance – and the political imperative of making the Epstein fiasco disappear,” the Times writes, adding it’s a “political objective” sought by that fat fuck, who “has privately carped about the slow pace of Justice Department action to his political enemies, according to people in his orbit, and made it unmistakably known what he wanted.”

“The emergence of the grand jury inquiry was unusual in several ways – not least, because its existence was revealed to right-leaning media outlets like Fox News before any actual investigative steps had apparently been taken. Moreover, it remains unclear who the grand jury might investigate and for what, if any, crimes,” the Times story continues further down, these passages copied here verbatim to illustrate just how far the Gray Lady is willing to go with validating what everybody already fucking knows about this slapdick distraction op and where it’s all but certain to be heading.

And why it was started. “It is not clear whether Mr Trump, who is marking his first six months in office, would have pushed quite so forcefully for the department to act against his perceived foes if the Epstein case was not still smoldering political fire. But it has certainly added to the urgency, administration officials said.” Lol. National Zero also uses “It is not clear if/whether” to weaselishly slip in similarly unfalsifiable assertions/editorializing under an imprimatur of “reportage.”

It’s like “Just asking questions” for people who went to college and read books, with the added advantage of being structurally indistinct from acknowledgements of authentic gaps in a factual record. The sentence “It’s not clear if the suspect has retained a defense lawyer yet” may begin with that same four words as “It’s not clear if Goose-Man, whose secret identity remains unknown pending a formal determination by a coroner, was making his signature honking noises…” but it should be clear where this is going because Goose-Man was a fictional character for a marginally cruel joke about some asshole who ran onto an airport runway and straight into a jet engine.