Purviews, or I Can't Get Into That

Bob Mueller, at the top of his game:

That went well, now didn't it?

Apologies to Tom Lehrer

Don't say that he's hypocritical
Say rather that he's apolitical
"Once the slanders are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department" says Mueller von Braun

The last honest Democrat?

Mark Penn, who worked as a pollster for Bill Clinton during the Whitewater investigation that morphed into Lewinskygate, has been probably the sanest portside observer of the continuing Mueller fandango. Writing for The Hill, he's got it nailed:

Most people don’t understand what it is to not only be personally investigated for something you didn’t do but also have your friends, family members and associates placed in legal jeopardy over it. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team systematically targeted the people around the president, squeezing them like lemons, indicting them on mostly process crimes created by the investigation itself. They reviewed everyone’s emails, text messages, phone calls, bank statements — and yet their conclusion on collusion was clear and definitive. It has to be believed.

But it's not likely to stop Jerrold Nadler and Adam Schiff from staying on the trail. Why? Ask Penn:

But the problem is that Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) are congressmen from safe districts who are nobodies if they have no investigations to launch. It’s in the interest of their egos to keep it all going so that they can have daily press availabilities. And they are whipping up their political bases. It will take some Democrats of courage to turn this off and stop the abuse of going after the president’s financial records. These are the kinds of things Nixon was doing, and there is no justification for those in Congress to be doing exactly those things for which Nixon resigned from office — going after his political enemies.

Exactly. The Democrats are projecting more than a 20-screen multiplex and have been since the inception of this drama. Will they take Penn's advice and call off the chihuahuas? The bet here -- not a chance.

Prove you're innocent, Bad Orange Man!

So the Mueller Report (sounds like a failed Robert Ludlum novel) is out. And for all the hyperventilating about it, the most astonishing thing to me is that now, in 2019 America, you have to prove you're innocent. It has almost always been the case that if a prosecutor cannot find grounds to indict, they say so. Robert Mueller didn't indict, but he left the matter open. That's outrageous. Instead, he left a report filled with a bunch of nuggets so that others could continue to torment his quarry.

We've seen this before, actually. The corrupt Democrats in Wisconsin did the same thing to Scott Walker. The "John Doe" investigations of his campaign were thrown out by state and federal judges, but we got to read all of the prosecution's theories anyway. It was a disgrace. So is what happened to Donald Trump.

Bonus: see if you can spot the irony in the article I linked.

Devotionals

So people have been selling things like this candle. And there's a market for it. Or rather, there was a market, until their deus ex machina dropped down with bupkis.

Sanctus rectum

I do struggle with schadenfreude and its applications. Mockery is fun, but it's not good form to stroll on to a battlefield and start shooting the wounded. And there are plenty of people who are wounded. My usual social media feed, amply stocked with people who believe the soul of wit is posting 50 Trump-bashing posts a day, every day, features many who are struggling with what's next. A few are posting cat pictures. Others are muttering.

Still, the aftermath of the Mueller investigation has been worth it, as we contemplate the carnage on the battlefield. Will anyone really care what Rachel Maddow thinks any more? The Adam Schiffs and Jerrold Nadlers of the world will persist, but they aren't likely to get anywhere, and there's no appetite for their bumbling. The focus will shift to the 2020 Democratic field, whose members will jostle for position and, if the first moments are any indication, will not impress.

It's a period of transition.

Be the solution

National Public Radio reports, with a straight face, the following:

Andrew Weissmann, the architect of the case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, will study and teach at New York University and work on a variety of public service projects, including his longstanding interest in preventing wrongful convictions by shoring up forensic science standards used in courts, the sources added.

Emphasis mine. This Weissmann guy has spent his career specializing in wrongful convictions, as the invaluable Mollie Hemingway reminds us:

If Mueller had no effective supervision against the abuses of the above underlings, why would anyone trust him to supervise his good buddy Weissman, whom he picked to run lead on his probe of Trump? Weissman destroyed the accounting firm Arthur Anderson LLP, which once had 85,000 employees. Thanks to prosecutorial abuse, jurors were not told that Arthur Anderson didn’t have criminal intent when it shredded documents. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction, but it was too late to save the company.

Weissman also “creatively criminalized a business transaction between Merrill Lynch and Enron,” which sent four executives to jail. Weissman concocted unprecedented charges and did not allow the executives to get bail, causing massive disruption to the families before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed most of Weissman’s case.

The most direct way to prevent wrongful convictions is to remove people who pursue them. So it's good news, I guess.

It's the only way to be sure

It's becoming increasingly clear that 2019 is shaping up to be all about getting Trump impeached. He will not be removed from office, though, just as Bill Clinton was not removed. So what's the point?

The always entertaining Kurt Schlichter has the solution:

This is all a lie and a scam. And Donald Trump can and should use his pardon power to highlight this fraud before he drives a stake into the heart of the elite’s soft coup play.

He should pardon everyone.

I mean everyone. 

Pardon Flynn, and Manafort, and Papadopliswhateverhisnameis. Pardon Stone and Corsi. Pardon Don, Jr., Jared, and Ivanka. Pardon Melania and Barron. Pardon Pence, and Pence’s pets. And then he should pardon himself.

For everything. Take it all off the table. Strip the elite of its ability to coerce perjury and ruin lives for the sin of dissenting.

Pardon everyone, for everything. 

It’s all a lie and a scam anyway, and there’s no sense pretending this is all some kind of legit truth-seeking exercise in support of lofty and noble principles. It’s a tawdry frame job by a failed elite desperate to hold on to the power that the people revoked in November 2016. We owe the ruling class no respect; there’s no reason to pretend this Mueller farce is anything but a transparent attempt to claw-back the authority the elite forfeited by being terrible.

We have more important things to do than play this game. Time to clear the chessboard.

Game theory?

Trying to figure out what Trump is doing right now? Conrad Black offers a supposition:

The Democrats have been shouting from the housetops about protecting Mueller, but Trump has no interest in shutting him down. Mueller has nothing, and his terrors don’t impress its victims. What is inexplicable is the president’s delay in naming an attorney general. He must have been considering this question since it became clear that Jeff Sessions was a prosecutorial eunuch 18 months ago. The only reason that comes to mind for his waiting is because he wants to see if the Democrats are going to be stupid enough to try to impeach him, which would not only fail and backfire, it would be a gold-edged invitation to send the Clinton campaign and Obama Justice Department in droves to the grand jury, and on from there on the conveyer-belt of American criminal justice to the fate they deserve.

One thing about all presidents -- they have access to a lot more information than their critics do. Twitter venting doesn't tell us what's really going on, or what Trump is really going to do. Keep watching.

Mostly open thread

There's not as much news right now and one might expect. While it's evident that Bad Orange Man is not pleased with Robert Mueller, that's not really news. The fires in California are horrifying and tragic, but until they are extinguished, there's not much to report beyond the sadly burgeoning death toll. Republicans are feckless, Democrats are reckless -- you knew that.

So again it's a mostly open thread, although I'd like to post video of the great Roy Clark, who passed away yesterday at the age of 85. Clark is mostly remembered today for his many years on the syndicated variety show "Hee Haw," where he held court with Buck Owens and a cast of Nashville Grand Ole Opry performers and cornfed cuties. You got glimpses of Roy Clark's brilliance on the show, but he was an amazing guitarist who could play anything. If you want evidence, consider this performance from about 1975, when Clark was a guest on "The Odd Couple":

RIP.

One brief thing to call to your attention this morning

One thing about the infamous Steele Dossier has always puzzled me, which is the early support of the effort to get dirt on Republican candidates, especially Trump, by the Washington Free Beacon, which is largely a conservative website. It's also puzzled me why The Weekly Standard, which has long fancied itself a bulwark of conservatism, Beltway-style, has always been so supportive of taking Trump down, even now, nearly two years since the election.

We may have an answer, thanks to this report from Julie Kelly, writing for the website American Greatness, discussing the recent support from Bill Kristol's publication for the odious Peter Strzok:

So, what’s with the fanboying between the Standard—an allegedly serious publication dedicated to advancing conservative principles—and a corrupt government bureaucrat who embodies everything the conservative movement fought against for decades?

I found an article in the Standard archives this week that might explain why. On July 24, 2016, just days before Strzok helped launch a counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign, Kristol gave Strzok and the Obama Justice Department a big assist from the anti-Trump Right by posting a flawed and questionably-sourced article. “Putin’s Party” is compelling evidence that Kristol and the Standard were far from mere sideline observers as the Trump-Russia collusion scam took shape in the summer of 2016.

At the very least, the timing of the article suggests there was careful coordination between the central players—including the Hillary Clinton campaign—and Bill Kristol to derail Trump’s candidacy just weeks before the election. But the article’s content also serves to raise alarming questions about the claims by many Republicans that “conservatives” had no knowledge of or involvement with the Christopher Steele dossier.

Oh, it's another conspiracy theory! But read on:

A few hours after the Standard piece went online, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook reinforced Kristol’s message in an interview on CNN. Desperate to change the subject from DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s pending resignation, Mook also claimed the Russians were behind the DNC’s computer hack because Putin wanted Trump to win. There were other similarities to Kristol’s article. “Trump and his allies made changes to the Republican platform to make it more pro-Russian,” Mook told Jake Tapper. “And we saw him talking about how NATO shouldn’t intervene to defend our Eastern European allies if they are attacked by Russia. So, I think, when you put all this together, it’s a disturbing picture.”

The next day, Carter Page received his first text from a reporter and former Wall Street Journal colleague of Simpson’s, asking him about his ties to Russia and mentioning dossier-sourced specifics. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest fielded his first (planted) question during the daily press briefing by an AP reporter, who oddly asked whether the DNC hack was an attempt to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump.

Coincidence? Not a chance.

Kristol would take to Twitter dozens of times before the election to promote the Trump-Russia collusion fantasy, even referring to the GOP as “the Putin Party.” Kristol’s handpicked candidate to challenge Trump, Evan McMullin, also pushed the Trump-Russia narrative. (On the other hand, despite Fusion and Glenn Simpson being covered in the conservative media for more than a year, Kristol has zero tweets about the firm.)

It might be easy to dismiss all of this as mere happenstance, the rantings of a fierce Trump foe determined to do whatever he could to stop Trump from winning. But there is an important sidebar to consider: The Washington Free Beacon admitted last year that they retained Fusion from late 2015 until April 2016 to gather opposition research on Republican primary candidates. The website is run by Kristol’s son-in-law, Matthew Continetti. The Beacon posted numerous negative stories about the Trump campaign in 2016, including hit pieces on Carter Page in March and July.

Rudy Giuliani has been huffing and puffing rather a lot lately about how it's all about to come crashing down and demanding the Mueller write his report now. It's worth remembering that Trump has access to every document Mueller has used up to this point. He also has access to all the information that was used against him. He's been waiting, waiting, occasionally firing a jab at Jeff Sessions, but mostly letting things play out. The game will be on shortly, I think.

More at the link. Worth your time.

Fearless predictions

I have two this morning, in the wake of the news that Robert Mueller has been indicting ham sandwiches again:

• The indicted Russians will never stand trial. That's the easy one.
• The Russians will retaliate. They will either (a) indict 12 random U.S. military officials; (b) kick 12 random Americans out of Russia, accusing them of espionage; and/or (c) arrest 12 Americans for espionage. It could be all three, actually.

As an aside, I would not be surprised if an attorney shows up in a U.S. court, as happened with Mueller's previous indictments, purporting to represent the indicted Russians, and then asks for discovery and a speedy trial. And Mueller will have to delay and obfuscate yet again. 

Home Truth

Another sighting of the rarest of all birds, the honest Democrat. Former Clinton hand Mark Penn, writing for The Hill:

Stopping Mueller isn’t about one president or one party. It’s about all presidents and all parties. It’s about cleaning out and reforming the deep state so that our intelligence operations are never used against opposing campaigns without the firmest of evidence. It’s about letting people work for campaigns and administrations without needing legal defense funds. It’s about relying on our elections to decide our differences.

More, a lot more, at the link.

It's a gas, gas, gas

I was born in a cross-fire hurricane

And I howled at the morning driving rain
But it's all right now, in fact, it's a gas
But it's all right. I'm Jumpin' Jack Flash
It's a gas, gas, gas

It's starting to hit the fan. We now have a name for what was happening in 2016 -- Crossfire Hurricane:

The FBI investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia was originally known as "Crossfire Hurricane" before it was widely known to the public and even the bureau itself, officials told The New York Times.

The case, named after a Rolling Stones lyric, was used by only the small group of agents sent to interview the Australian ambassador to the United Kingdom, who had evidence of possible collusion between Russia and a Trump adviser. 

What this means -- at the behest of someone within the Obama administration, the FBI was spying on the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. This isn't G. Gordon Liddy and his crew breaking into the Watergate -- this is the executive branch actively interfering in a presidential campaign. This is huge.

We can also assume the Inspector General's report is imminent and that the reportage we're seeing now is an attempt to get out ahead of the story. If the trail leads back to the White House, we're talking about a political scandal that makes all the others look like a game of checkers.

A guess on how this plays out:

• The IG report drops and it's damming
• Trump then, finally, declassifies all of the information -- the redactions and ass-covering included
• As the corruption oozes forward, it becomes quite easy for Trump to shut down Mueller, so he does

So you remember the notion that the Obama administration was "remarkably scandal-free?" Guess not.

Ask an expert

If the problem with the Trump administration is a tendency to collude, they really ought to get better at it. Perhaps they could ask some experts. The invaluable Judicial Watch has the details:

On May 17, 2017, Comey received notices to appear before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee.

An email chain dated May 18 and 19, 2017, with the subject line “Future testimony” shows then-FBI Chief of Staff James Rybicki, then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Assistant Director Gregory Brower, Comey and others discussing Comey’s upcoming testimony:

In this chain, on May 18 at 6:30 pm, Comey wrote to Rybicki to confirm that he had accepted the invitation to testify before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) but declined the invitations from the Senate Judiciary Committee and House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee.

Comey also writes: “Last, would you please tell OGC [Office of the General Counsel] that I would like to be able to review any documents authored by me or on which I am copied that will be produced to SSCI in connection with my testimony and would like the opportunity for that review before I testify?”

An email from a redacted sender, apparently Comey, to Rybicki dated May 19 at 11:49 am reads:

Jim

I just got off a call with Senators Burr and Warner. They would like to have a hearing next Wednesday at which I testify, first in open session and then in closed, if necessary. I asked them not to announce it until I check with FBI/DOJ to see if you want to discuss anything before they do that. I told them I had asked for guidance on any institutional prerogatives and for the opportunity to review any documents FBI has produced that relate to me. I told them I would communicate with them by the end of the day to either ask them to hold announcing the Wednesday hearing or go ahead.

Many thanks.

Jim

On May 19 at 2:10 pm, Rybicki writes back:

Director: We just met to discuss the requests outlined in the two emails below. Before responding the General Counsel has asked me to confirm that you have discussed with the attorneys representing you, and that you are comfortable discussing these issues with us rather than communicating through your counsel.

On May 19 at 3:02 pm, a redacted sender, likely Comey, responds to Rybicki: “Yes and yes.”

Remember, Comey had been fired at this point. Why was he still talking to people in the FBI and colluding with them? Do you suppose Michael Flynn was offered similar courtesies? And note that Comey was willing to talk to some committees, but not others. The House Oversight Committee is Trey Gowdy's shop -- not someone who Comey would want to deal with. As for the Senate Judiciary Committee, that's Chuck Grassley's group -- again, a potential adversary Comey wouldn't want. It's not surprising he'd rather see Senators Burr and Warner, who were far less likely to ask him tough questions.

The whole investigation has stunk from the get-go. And the reasons are all hiding in plain sight. No matter what you think of Donald Trump's vulgarian deportment, he is the duly elected president. That Comey and Mueller were working with the FBI to collude coordinate testimony tells you everything you need to know about the nature of Mueller's work. It's never been about justice. It's all about preserving fiefdoms. I don't want any of these goons to be lord of our manor.

He's right, you know

Roger Kimball, discussing the wisdom of Judge T.S. Ellis:

The crux of Judge Ellis’s repartee with Robert Mueller’s thugs, er, prosecutors revolved around the legitimate exercise of power. His remarks have been quoted in dozens of columns. They deserve to be quoted in dozens, if not hundreds, more.

“What we don’t want in this country is we don’t want anyone with unfettered power,” Ellis said. “We don’t want federal judges with unfettered power. We don’t want elected officials with unfettered power. We don’t want anybody, including the president of the United States, nobody to have unfettered power. So it’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me that the special prosecutor has unlimited powers to do anything he or she wants.”

So, Judge Ellis been quoted one more time. And he's right, you know. We had all manner of unfettered power when President Pen and Phone was in office. No matter what else you might think of Donald Trump, he's done us all a favor by rolling back his predecessor's excesses. And we need a whole lot more Judge Ellises in public life.

Slapped down

Is the Mueller juggernaut off the rails? Well, at least one key judge thinks so:

A federal judge in Virginia on Friday sharply questioned special counsel Robert Mueller’s authority to bring tax and bank fraud charges against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

“I don’t see what relationship this indictment has with anything the special counsel is authorized to investigate,” said US District Judge T.S. Ellis III of the Eastern District of Virginia.

“You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort,” Ellis told Mueller’s team, suggesting that they lied about the scope of the probe and are seeking “unfettered power” to bring down the president.

We don't really know what the special counsel is authorized to investigate, because Rod Rosenstein is stonewalling requests to find out. But Judge Ellis could throw out the Manafort case with prejudice, which would be a huge blow to Mueller.

Meanwhile, the Russian troll farms that that Mueller is supposedly dealing with are fighting back as well:

A federal judge has rejected special counsel Robert Mueller’s request to delay the first court hearing in a criminal case charging three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens with using social media and other means to foment strife among Americans in advance of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

In a brief order Saturday evening, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich offered no explanation for her decision to deny a request prosecutors made Friday to put off the scheduled Wednesday arraignment for Concord Management and Consulting, one of the three firms charged in the case.

This was supposed to be a slam-dunk. Now, maybe not:

The 13 people charged in the high-profile indictment in February are considered unlikely to ever appear in a U.S. court. The three businesses accused of facilitating the alleged Russian troll farm operation — the Internet Research Agency, Concord Management, and Concord Catering — were also expected to simply ignore the American criminal proceedings.

Last month, however, a pair of Washington-area lawyers suddenly surfaced in the case, notifying the court that they represent Concord Management. POLITICO reported at the time that the move appeared to be a bid to force Mueller’s team to turn over relevant evidence to the Russian firm and perhaps even to bait prosecutors into an embarrassing dismissal in order to avoid disclosing sensitive information.

The discovery request suggests the game these lawyers are playing:

Lawyers for the company accused of funding Russia’s election interference trolls are demanding that special counsel Robert Mueller turn over reams of information, including the identities of informants, details of any electronic surveillance, and a list of “each and every instance” since 1945 in which the U.S. “engaged in operations to interfere with elections and political processes in any foreign country.”

I hold no brief for Russian troll farms, but this request is pretty amusing, actually. Anybody up for a little discussion of Jacobo Arbenz? Or Iran, circa 1953? Or Obama trying to oust Netanyahu?

This is gonna get pretty interesting soon.

The rarest of all birds. . .

. . . at least in this era, is a Democrat who thinks through the implications of a course of action. Mark Penn, an old Bill Clinton hand, is one of those rare birds. And in a piece for The Hill, Penn lays it out concerning Rod Rosenstein:

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s reaction to reports of possible impeachment for failing to respond to congressional subpoenas was to proclaim that the Justice Department “will not be extorted.”

I suppose he meant to say, “Only we here at the Justice Department do the extorting, with special counsels, daylight raids of people’s attorneys, bankrupting people with legal fees, threats to prosecute family members, and questionable wiretapping of Americans.”

All of these things have happened with Rosenstein overseeing the work of Robert Mueller, even though the oversight has been a wink and a nod. And Penn is just getting warmed up:

Last time I checked, the Constitution gave the elected representatives of the people the right to decide whether to impeach public officials for failure to comply with completely lawful subpoenas and appropriate oversight. They even provide Congress with immunity included in the Constitution to prevent threats from people like Rosenstein.

As the proposed questions for President Trump from special counsel Robert Mueller imply, just the act of the president raising issues or even having negative thoughts about the appropriateness of actions by Rosenstein, fired FBI director James Comey or Mueller can be investigated as possible obstruction of justice.

Thoughtcrime! Or if you prefer, shut up, Rosenstein explained. And Penn also reminds us of Rosenstein's perfidy at the outset of this drama:

This government within the government has now crossed a line that is unacceptable. By gaining the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Rosenstein stepped into the shoes of the attorney general, even though he was not appointed to that role by the president.

Now he believes he is above the law despite the myriad of conflicts he has ignored to authorize these unlimited investigations of the administration he supposedly serves. Remember, Rod Rosenstein provided the memo supporting the firing of Comey and then turned around and installed Mueller, a friend of Comey’s, as special counsel, right after trying to get Mueller the position of head of the FBI.

And the proper course of action? Back to Penn:

Sessions should call Rosenstein in and demand that he comply fully with the subpoenas or fire him and replace him with someone who will fairly oversee the Russia investigation and who will comply with the lawful orders of Congress. Yes, all hell will break loose, but Rosenstein has now assumed unconstitutional powers, believing that he is accountable to no one but his own conception of the rule of law, and these comments reveal the truth that has been carefully hidden below the Harvard-educated patina of respectability.

And then there's this set of questions, which also deserve an answer:

And by the way, exactly who is paying for Michael Avenatti, attorney for Stormy Daniels, and the continued work of Fusion GPS? Might that be donor money not being reported?

The longer this farce goes on, the worse it stinks. Penn understands that. We all need to understand it.

It's a coup

Let's just call it what it is. There is no way in hell that Robert Mueller, or the Southern District of New York, or anyone else, should have any ability to raid the private attorney of the President of the United States, looking for something, anything.

If I were Donald Trump, I'd simply say the hell with it and do the following:

1. Fire Mueller
2. Fire Rosenstein
3. Fire Sessions
4. Fire the entire Justice Department, if that's what it takes to clean house
5. Declassify everything, and I mean everything
6. Release the IG report concerning what these shaved apes in bespoke have been doing to the country. All of it.
7. Dare Adam Schiff to do anything about any of it, since I suspect he's up to his eyeballs in a lot of this, too

They've come to kill the king*. Either the king fights back, or the king dies. There's no point in showing any deference to someone with a dagger in his hand.


*Yes, I know Trump isn't a king, nor would I want him to be king. But he was duly elected and what is happening now is outrageous beyond measure.

Layers of the onion

Andrew McCarthy, scales removed from his eyes, is now peeling back the layers on GotterMuellerung:

Yes, it was clear that [FBI Agent Peter] Strzok engaged in serious misconduct: The married G-man’s reported extramarital affair with his married FBI colleague Lisa Page was scandalous not only for the obvious reasons but as potential blackmail material against counterintelligence agents. Plus, Strzok appears to have been the main investigator in the Hillary Clinton emails case that the FBI and Justice Department bent over backwards not to prosecute; and there is reason to believe his rabidly anti-Trump text messages with his paramour crossed the line from arrogant political banter to unprofessional investigative decision-making.

But there were dissonant notes, too, cutting against the neat ditty about a high-ranking government agent acting on a corrupt partisan agenda. For one thing, I was hearing from people with good national-security credentials that Strzok was a highly effective counterintelligence agent.

And then there was Mike Flynn.

You remember Mike Flynn. He was briefly Trump's National Security Adviser. The guy our Lord and Savior* Robert Mueller got to cop a guilty plea. The guy who lied to the FBI. Or did he?

The first revelations about Strzok’s texts came only days after General Flynn, who had fleetingly served as President Trump’s first national-security adviser, pled guilty in the Mueller investigation to a charge of lying to FBI investigators. Strzok had conducted the interview with Flynn. Combine that with the fact that he had been a principal in all the important FBI interviews in the Clinton caper, and the presumption crystalized: Political hack Strzok went kid-gloves on the Hillary Gang and scorched-earth on Trump World.

That’s not reality, though. 

There is a problem here. Strzok didn't think Flynn lied. But Mueller and his band of avenging angels went scorched earth on Flynn. Back to McCarthy:

Flynn’s case is back in the news thanks to Byron York’s important Washington Examiner report yesterday. He retraces the history: Because Flynn was a Trump transition official and incoming national-security adviser, there was nothing at all inappropriate about his discussing Obama-imposed sanctions against Russia with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Nevertheless, then–acting attorney general and Obama partisan Sally Yates seriously considered prosecuting Flynn under the absurd, never-invoked Logan Act. This misconception that Flynn had done something wrong led Yates and Comey to have Flynn interviewed as if he were a criminal suspect. Apparently unconcerned, Flynn agreed to be interviewed without counsel. Strzok came away from the session believing that Flynn had told the truth. Comey, Byron York reports, “told lawmakers that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe that Flynn had lied to them, or that any inaccuracies in his answers were intentional.”

Yet, ten months later, with Yates, Comey, and Strzok now out of the picture, Mueller decided to charge Flynn with lying to the FBI anyway. And Flynn decided to plead guilty — perhaps because he was guilty . . . or perhaps because he lacked the resources to sustain the legal fight . . . or perhaps because he feared Mueller’s team would otherwise prosecute his son.

But there's more. McCarthy noticed something that seems important:

The judge who accepted Flynn’s guilty plea was Rudolph Contreras. Mysteriously, just days after taking Flynn’s plea, Judge Contreras recused himself from the case. The press has been remarkably uncurious about this development. No rationale for the recusal has been offered, no explanation for why, if Judge Contreras had some sort of conflict, the recusal came after the guilty plea, not before. We can note that Contreras is one of the eleven federal district judges assigned to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

We do not know if Judge Contreras signed one or more of the FISA warrants the Justice Department sought for Trump campaign figures Carter Page and Paul Manafort (or even if signing a FISA warrant would constitute grounds for a conflict in Flynn’s case). We can note, however, that Contreras is one of just three FISA court judges who sits in the District of Columbia, where it is likely the Trump-Russia FISA warrants were sought.

That's. . . odd. But this is worse:

When Judge Contreras pulled out, Flynn’s case was reassigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. We now know that one of Judge Sullivan’s first actions on the case was to file an order directing Mueller to provide Flynn with any evidence in the special counsel’s possession that is favorable to Flynn, whether on the issue of guilt or of sentencing. Significantly, the order stresses that if Mueller has such evidence but believes it is not “material” and therefore that Flynn is not entitled to disclosure of it, Mueller must show the evidence to the court so that Judge Sullivan may decide whether to mandate its disclosure.

Did Mueller's team tell Flynn that Strzok didn't think he'd committed the crime. If he had, why would Mueller be charging him in the first place? And if he had, what are the chances Flynn would have pled guilty? Back to McCarthy:

Now, it could be that this is just Judge Sullivan’s standard order on exculpatory information, filed in every case over which he presides. But it is noteworthy that Flynn had already pled guilty, and in the course of doing so had agreed to Mueller’s demand that he waive “the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided” — in addition to forfeiting many other trial and appellate rights. (See plea agreement, pages 6–7.) It certainly appears that Sullivan’s order supersedes the plea agreement and imposes on the special counsel the obligation to reveal any and all evidence suggesting that Flynn is innocent of the charge to which he has admitted guilt.

It's important to understand -- getting Flynn's scalp is Mueller's biggest accomplishment. Paul Manafort's alleged crimes happened well before he signed on to the Trump campaign, while George Papadopolous was at best a low-level functionary, no matter what his fiancee says. And no one has charged Carter Page with anything. If it turns out that Mueller's team withheld exculpatory evidence to get Flynn to cop a plea, this thing could blow sky-high.

*If my tongue were planted any further in my cheek, it would come out my elbow.