How can any reporter say no more indictments are coming?

[manor321]

I'm just absolutely flabbergasted that a reporter can put this in their story:

Sources familiar with the investigation believe there are no more indictments coming from the special counsel.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/letter-deputy-attorney-general-rod-rosenstein-offers-potential/story?id=61847216

How does that make any sense at all? Why did Mueller's team spend all of this time and energy prosecuting Paul Manafort? The crimes he was charged with don't relate directly to Mueller's investigation, which is Russian interference and if there was coordination with the Trump campaign. Why did they bother to go through with two trials of Manafort (with one of the trials aborting because he pled guilty)? Why did they handle the cases themselves instead of just handing them off? Why did they then enter a cooperation agreement with him? And then why did they get so angry when he lied to them? Why did they go BACK to the court to argue he should be sentenced because he was lying to them? Why go through all the effort of monitoring Manafort's communications and then putting the paperwork together to demonstrate to the judge that he was lying?

They did all of that for nothing? When they could just simply have handed off the financial crimes case to another team?

I'm just stunned a reporter can put this in an article without also saying, "And this information sounds insane."

[UniteFightBack]

1. What about the dozens of sealed indictments? What about them, they exist.

I know I saw a few reporters say it too. I'm not going to get worked up..........yet.

[theboss]

3. Because - again - every court in the country has sealed indictments

Those probably have nothing to do with Mueller.

My gut instinct is that there is either one more giant indictment coming, like Don Jr......or ……. this is just about over.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

12. WHAT dozens of sealed indictments?

How do we know they exist? I want actual proof. Otherwise, it's just someone's imagination.

[Grasswire2]

2. ridiculous

I believe that some forces must be deliberately muddying the water and throwing out all kinds of nonsense.

Networks and reporters should just stop that. It's out of control.

Stupid.

[LiberalFighter]

4. Who is telling them? Probably Individual 1's attorneys.

[JonLP24]

5. I don't buy they are wrapping soon at all

[marylandblue]

6. "sources familiar with the investigation" usually means lawyers

for people who might be indicted. These are the same people who keep saying the investigation is almost over.

[hughee99]

13. The think that phrase sometimes means "stuff I made up, and you can't prove otherwise"

Given how often those “sources” are wrong.

[Socal31]

7. Comey couldn't help but rear his head again in an Op-Ed.

He seems to be preparing the world for a certain outcome.

[Ilsa]

8. A certain outcome? What does that mean? nt

[Socal31]

9. I think it is fairly obvious. But Im wrong all the time.

My point isn't to be cryptic, but to see if others reach the same conclusion I do.

I believe our expectations are being softened, for whatever reason.

[spanone]

10. there will be misinformation to muddy all the waters.....lots of bullshit

[Cracklin Charlie]

11. ABC?

They do this at least once every week.

[onenote]

14. Still flabbergasted?