Legal expert explains why Steve Bannon’s potential indictment is taking so long

As critics of Donald Trump and his allies grow anxious over the lack of action over Steve Bannon's outright refusal to abide by a subpoena from the House committee investigating the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, MSNBC opinion columnist Joyce Vance writes that the delay is a good sign.

"There's an old saying prosecutors like to repeat to one another: If you shoot at the king, you'd best not miss," writes Vance, a former U.S attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.

"Roughly translated, that means don't indict a suspect before your evidence is in place. The government bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard of proof we use in our legal system, and to meet that burden, the prosecution must have admissible evidence of guilt," she continues. "Prosecutors can't rely on what everyone thinks they know or what people believe. Ensuring they have evidence to establish every element of a crime, even in a matter that seems as self-proving as this one, takes time and effort."

According to Vance, silence doesn't mean nothing is happening -- it just means more people will be frustrated that they don't know what's going on.

"Likely, we will learn about the outcome if the Justice Department either discloses an indictment or, perhaps, it advises Congress that it won't take any action on its referral."

Read the full op-ed over at MSNBC.


Adam Schiff clashes with ex-Trump official: 'The credibility of your question is in doubt'