Stories from the beginning of November? You see a bunch of them around that time. They speculate a lot about Flynn. They quote unnamed sources, which tends to be an invitation to ridicule by all those who think the press makes stuff up just to get Trump.

This is a little like all the Trump apologists claiming that after all these months of no indictments, of course we now know that there is nothing to it (until they indicted Manafort). Even though it was years after the Starr appt that any indictment occurred, for an act that occurred years after Starr began his work. All of a sudden a few months of no indictments is an indication that nothing's there? Since when did that become a critical time frame?

Never, really. In a case like this it should not be unusual if it took years for indictments to come, if they ever do.

So now, what, 3 weeks or so has passed since sources said the next likely indictment is Flynn? I have no idea whether or not Flynn will ever be indicted, but I don't think the amount of time that has passed since multiple news stories started pointing to him mean anything at all. Anymore than the Trump defender screams that - gasp - the special prosecutor has been at work for weeks I tell ya - even months - with no indictments! Until Manafort.

And of course none of us knew that there had already been a fairly damning guilty plea at that point.

The statute of limitations has an awfully long way to run before anyone involved can feel in the clear. That's probably the only deadline that Mueller worries about. Not a three week - or for that matter 3 month - deadline that some will love to put on that flurry of speculation to say "see - it was fake news and they just want to get Trump!"

For some, its just way easier to attack the messengers than actually consider the messages.