So, as we remain on Trump Organization indictment watch, let's try to tackle the following question.

Why does it often seem to take so long for prosecutors to indict people for their crimes?

Let's talk about that, because justice and indeed timely justice matters.

So, as we remain on Trump Organization indictment watch, we continue to see headlines like the following, this from the Guardian,

Trump in financial and political danger as company faces possible criminal charges, and this from Forbes, an indictment will be death blow for Trump hotels, resorts and golf clubs, safe former federal prosecutors.

Now, as we wait and as we watch, I want to try to tackle a question that gets asked over and over and over again.

Why does it take so darn long for prosecutors to indict people for their crimes?

Especially, you know, connected, influential, powerful, rich, white men, but I want to set aside the political discussion or answer to that question, and I want to talk for just a few minutes about the institutional reasons.

The systemic reasons that I think accounts at least in part for why it takes so darn long to indict folks for their crimes, and in my experience, the answer is in part that prosecutors have no deadlines.

Why do I say that?

There are two ways to start a grand jury investigation. There are reactive investigations and there are proactive investigations. What do I mean by that?

A reactive investigation is the prosecutor reacting to an arrest, so an arrest is made, and then we have to get in the grand jury, and we have to move out quickly toward an indictment. Why?

Because once an arrest is made, the defendant is presented to the judge, to the court, typically within 24 to 48 hours, and we are on the court clock, so we have deadlines one after another, and they come rapidly, and we need to investigate in the grand jury and promptly return an indictment.

That's a reactive investigation. We react to the arrest. Most federal investigations, the overwhelming number of federal investigations, are proactive investigations.

How does that differ from a reactive investigation? A proactive investigation is law enforcement, and detectives investigators, FBI agents, sensing that there is some criminal activity afoot,

and the prosecutor will go into the grand jury and open what's called a grand jury original investigation. It's a fancy term for nobody's been arrested.

And when nobody's been arrested, you know what? There are no deadlines. The court is not breathing down our necks, saying you need to move out promptly toward an indictment so we can get this case moving through the system.

So here is part of what I have seen firsthand, and I was a federal prosecutor for more than a couple of decades.

When prosecutors have no deadlines and these proactive, these open-ended grand jury investigations, the inclination is to investigate as thoroughly, as exhaustively, as deeply, as possible.

Because you don't have a deadline, you might as well try to perfect your case, make it as strong as humanly possible, make it so it's bulletproof, so you can't possibly lose it at trial.

But here's the problem with prosecutors having no deadlines in the context of that kind of a grand jury investigation. Think about this.

If your boss came to you and said, I have a big project for you, and you have no deadline, none, zero. Take all the time you want.

...