One standard, por favor

Ever since Andrew McCabe was cashiered from the FBI, one thing has been even more obvious than usual -- we aren't being particularly consistent. Jonathan Turley has noticed, too:

Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe penned an op-ed for The Washington Post to contest the allegation of his “lack of candor” with federal investigators.  I have been writing (here and here and here) on the contrast between the treatment of McCabe and former national security adviser Michael Flynn.  McCabe has been erroneously portrayed as “losing his pension” but has not been charged.  Flynn was charged and accepted a plea deal under 18 U.S.C. 1001 for making a false statement to investigators.  Now McCabe is raising virtually the same defense that did not work for Flynn: that there was a lot going on and he was “confused and distracted.”

But it's gonna work for McCabe. Back to Turley:

Given his willingness to hold forth publicly on his actions, McCabe does not appear to expect to be charged even though the Inspector General could refer a criminal allegation to prosecutors.

He lashes about at President Donald Trump and critics to assert ‘I did not knowingly mislead or lie to investigators.”  He then added this familiar defense: “At worst, I was not clear in my responses, and because of what was going on around me may well have been confused and distracted — and for that I take full responsibility.”

Responsibility without repercussion, of course. The ol' Janet Reno trick. Turley isn't done:

That is reportedly the same defense raised by Flynn who admitted to meeting with Russian diplomats during the busy transition period but did not disclose or confirm that they spoke about sanctions. He reportedly also did not make such a disclosure to Vice President Pence.  There was nothing unlawful in the meeting with the Russians or even unprecedented for an incoming national security adviser to discuss such points of tension between the countries.  Flynn did not seek legal assistance before the interview and was reportedly not told that the investigators were there as part of a possible criminal inquiry.

Emphasis mine. Let's set aside that Flynn's initial conduct wasn't even illegal. Flynn had a right to know he was being interrogated. Had he known, he could have refused to speak with the investigators until he had a lawyer. But the key is the disparate treatment. McCabe might have his pension delayed. Flynn has to sell his house to pay his legal fees. The good news is the judge overseeing the Flynn case, Emmett Sullivan, has no patience for government malfeasance. But Flynn won't get his money back, or his house, or his reputation. Lack of candor is bad enough. Lack of scruples is far worse.