Your critical reading skills are lacking, it seems. From that article I see phrases like “may explain” and “It’s uncertain what the sealed indictments are related to, but there is speculation. Some say the sealed indictments may be related” etc. You are seeing what you want.
My reality is that my/our assessment of nuances and very tiny detailed puzzle pieces has resulted in a huge percentage of largely accurate predictions over the last many decades.
But hey--maintain that death grip on your propensity for sentencing yourself virtually irrevocably to a host of false negative errors. You seem to delude yourself that a false negative error doesn't bite near as much as a false positive error that you are so allergic to. That delusion is horribly inaccurate.