During the two months since Trump attorney Evan Corcoran was forced to testify before the grand jury investigating whether the former president illegally kept secret documents, observers have predicted charges in the case were imminent. But those predictions have repeatedly failed to materialize

S

special

C

Ourselves Jack Smith has pursued a range of new research angles.

Does that suggest Smith still doesn’t have the goods? In short, no.

The document folder is simple at its core. The former president allegedly took government documents from the White House, which is a crime of sorts; and, more blatantly, failed to comply with a subpoena for those documents, lied about it, and otherwise obstructed federal authorities, which is another. Smith long ago mustered a formidable case that Trump did this despite knowing his conduct was against the law.

However, judging by Smith’s recent spate of activity, it seems the special prosecutor wanted to use the grand jury’s investigative powers for all they’re worth before asking for an indictment.

The defining function of a grand jury is to indict. But for prosecutors, the grand jury also has an indispensable investigative function, issuing subpoenas and hearing testimony from any relevant and available witness the prosecution wishes to call. For Smith, it’s a chance to examine Trump’s anticipated defense, record witness accounts, and pursue avenues of investigation that may or may not materialize.

All of these investigative functions dry up once a grand jury files an indictment.

Through this prism, the purpose of Smith’s maneuvers becomes clear. He has gone beyond building his base case to collect all the information he can before asking the grand jury to indict and losing his investigative powers.

Hence, the New York Times reported this week that Smith had served subpoenas for information about the Trump Organization’s business dealings in seven other countries. The subpoena appeared to rule out the possibility that Trump used the classified documents to make deals with foreign governments, which would be another serious crime, but it reportedly provided no new information.

Some commentators suggested the idea was to provide motive for Trump’s impediments. But the charges Smith is likely to file do not require any proof of motive, and they are serious regardless of what Trump did with the documents. I feel that Smith was exploring an angle of inquiry that turned out to be unfruitful.

The same goes for reports that Smith sent agents to interview much of the housekeeping and maintenance staff at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. I doubt he was desperate to bolster his case with a nugget of information from an unlikely source; rather I think he wants to leave no stone unturned while still being able to turn stones.

And some of Smith’s latest maneuvers have paid off. Records recently handed over to him by the National Archives apparently show Trump’s advisers told him he couldn’t just declassify documents with a wave of his hand, as he continues to ridiculously claim. Such evidence would make it nearly impossible for him to claim otherwise at trial.

Smith also reportedly obtained 50 pages of Corcoran’s contemporaneous handwritten notes documenting not only attorneys’ advice to Trump, but also the former president’s responses.

,

down to his hand gestures. The notes are probably more compelling evidence that Trump was clearly aware of his legal obligation to provide any classified documents requested by the administration.

So when can we expect Smith’s cross-crossing and i-dotting to end and the long-awaited indictment to be filed? Soon, according to the Wall Street Journal, which reported Tuesday that Smith is nearly done obtaining testimony and other evidence in the case. To lend credence to that report, Trump’s lawyers fired a letter Tuesday night seeking a meeting with U.S. Atty. General Merrick Garland, typically the last arrow in a defendant’s quiver trying to deflect an indictment.

Smith has probably been able to make Garland’s basic argument for prosecution for some time on the grounds set out in the department standards that

(

1) Trump did the crimes and

(

2) a conviction is likely. His protracted endgame suggests no fundamental weakness in the case. On the contrary, he is acting with the caution and imagination required by the most important prosecution in Justice Department history.

Harry Litman is the host of the

Talking Feds podcast

.

@harrylitman