Feminism, the Fake Indian, the Tragic State of the FBI, and the Flynn Flam

This has been a busy week and a sad one for the neo-feminists, the media, and #NeverTrump conservatives. It was a good one for those who believe we have for too long allowed a bunch of self-selected ninnies to drive both the news and the government.

A. The Neo-Feminists

A website called Medusa shut down after it was clear that it was impossible to continue to satirize the present-day feminists because they are so idiotic that parody too closely mirrors the neo-feminists' views:

Medusa’s unnamed creator continued: “We are shutting down our rather hilarious project because we can no longer compete with our competition. We have come to realize that our competition is not other satirical websites, but rather the people we are trying to satirize.”

The creator wrote, “I don’t blame anyone for thinking” the site was legitimate and wanted to “keep our readers in constant doubt” and even posted a Facebook message from last May to prove the entire thing was a joke. It was dubbed “the ultimate Social Experiment” and Facebook followers were told it was to see how long actual feminists would take to realize it was a joke.

A recent series of high-profile allegations of sexual harassment resulted in the site publishing a spoof article headlined, “Why we should believe women who accuse right wingers of rape more than those who accuse liberals.”

The site’s creator called the story a “total caricature intended to be as ridiculous as possible” but quickly realized mainstream news organizations, such as the Washington Post, published stories utilizing the same rationale as the mock column.

In fact, while they scream and march in pussy hats against the president, he is, as Powerline notes, a “feminist hero.”

The firing this morning of Matt Lauer from NBC prompts me to roll back the tape this post from last month, in which actress Amber Tamblyn said that “Honestly, I trace everything back to the election of Donald Trump. I think that without him being elected, if it had been Hillary Clinton, this would’ve never happened to Harvey Weinstein.” And if it “didn’t happen” to Weinstein, would it have happened to Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, Louis C.K., Kevin Spacey, etc?

Clearly the rules have changed. We now live in a zero-tolerance regime for sexual harassment. It is long overdue in many ways, but let’s be clear -- sexual harassment has persisted chiefly because of the hypocrisy of liberal elites who run our media and Hollywood institutions, going back at least to their defense of Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Now they are reaping the whirlwind. It is established fact that Weinstein’s own board of directors knew of his bad behavior, but only insisted that future settlements over employee harassment come out of his own pocket. So much for respecting women. And let’s not forget that the Academy Awards gave a special Oscar to convicted child rapist Roman Polanski, because, after all, as the appropriately named “Whoopi” Goldberg told us, it wasn’t really “rape rape.” I wonder how that comment would play today, or whether the Academy Awards will rescind Polanski’s Oscar in our new mood?

What changed the rules? Donald Trump. Above all else keep in mind that he is the main target of the new zero tolerance regime -- the unfinished business of the “Access Hollywood” tape. And if a lot of media and Hollywood icons (and a few stay congressmen) have to go down, that’s just collateral damage. Though Trump calls it “winning.”

In any case, feminists should be thanking Donald Trump for being the catalyst behind the rules change they have long demanded.

And the liberals in Hollywood and the media certainly are feeling the brunt of the change.

Traditional media have faced formidable challenges created by new technologies. This column’s most celebrated alumnus has described how unchecked bias has also undermined media authority. Now beyond questions of opinion and judgment, the industry faces a new test of its moral authority. How much cultural power can a movie or a television program exert if the audience decides its creators are repulsive?

How widespread is the sexual harassment in Hollywood and the media? Breitbart named 23 people in the media accused of such improprieties and the list seems to grow:

23. Geraldo Rivera -- Fox News Commentator

Accused of groping Bette Midler in 1991 *

20 – 22. Three Unnamed Vice Media Employees 

Fired for verbal and sexual harassment.

19. Teddy Davis -- Senior CNN Producer Jake Tapper’s State of the Union

Fired over three allegations of “behavior that does not align with the standards and values of CNN.”

18. Matt Zimmerman -- Booker for NBC’s Today Show

Fired over allegations of sexual harassment.

17. David Sweeney -- National Public Radio Chief News Editor

Left the company over allegations of sexual harassment.

16. Garrison Keillor -- National Public Radio Icon

Fired over allegations of inappropriate behavior.

15. Matt Lauer -- NBC News Anchor

Fired for sexual misconduct.

14. Charlie Rose -- CBS/PBS News Anchor

Fired over numerous allegations of harassment, misconduct, and groping.

13. Glenn Thrush -- New York Times White House Correspondent

On suspension over multiple allegations of harassment and unwanted touching.

12. Mark Halperin -- Bloomberg/NBC News Commentator

Fired over numerous allegations of sexual misconduct, unwanted sexual touching.

11. Lockhart Steele -- Editorial Director Vox Media

Fired over allegation of sexual harassment.

10. Unnamed Employee -- Vox Media

Resigned over allegations of sexual harassment.

9. David Corn -- MSNBC Contributor/Washington Bureau Chief for Mother Jones

Multiple accusations of sexual misconduct, unwanted touching.

8. Michael Oreskes – Senior Vice President and Editorial Director for NPR

Numerous allegations of sexual misconduct.

7. Leon Wiesletier – Three Decades as Literary Editor at the New Republic

Numerous allegations of sexual harassment.

6. Hamilton Fish – Publisher New Republic

Numerous allegations of sexual harassment.

5. Matt Taibbi -- Rolling Stone

Confessed in non-fiction memoir to the sexual abuse and the enabling of the abuse of female staffers. Now says he made it all up.

4. Jann Wenner -- Rolling Stone Owner

Accused of sexual misconduct.

3. Ian Prior -- Senior Editor the Guardian

Allegations of sexual harassment, groping.

2. Unnamed Guardian Employee

Allegations of sexual harassment, groping.

1. Matt Sullivan -- Guardian

Fired over allegations of sexual misconduct, groping.

[Note: this should read, "In 1991, Rivera was accused..." The groping actually took place in the early 70s.]

I’ve lost track, frankly, of the Hollywood figures accused of such improprieties. Although the way things are going, I’m expecting the next Oscar ceremony will be an all-woman event. What makes this even more ridiculous is that most of these men have regularly proclaimed their allegiance to the neo-feminists and their favored policies, most particularly support for abortion on demand and without any restrictions, and Planned Parenthood. I recall their hilarity at Pence’s rule of never dining alone with a woman not his wife. They pitched the line that conservatives are Neolithic prudes who hate women -- as they were sexually abusing all the women in their reach, most often women who lacked the backing and stature to fight back.

2. Fake Indians and the Absurd Demand for faculty “Diversity”

Much tongue clucking was heard over the President’s reference to Elizabeth Warren as “Pocahontas,” an allusion to her phony claim to Indian heritage. But to my mind, it was apt and called for. She’s a liar, like many on the left, and a hypocrite as well, supporting “diversity” and affirmative action programs while lying to take advantage of them at cost to those who might qualify. In May of 2012 -- forgotten by most of the media or brushed under the rug -- Warren admitted that she had told the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard Law school about her purported Indian heritage before she was hired. Harvard promoted her as the first “woman of color” on their faculty, she listed herself as Native American in the Association of American Law Schools deskbook, and the Cherokee tribe from whom she claims descent called her claim “harmful and offensive”. The notion that her lie did not boost her chances for hiring at Harvard, is demonstrably risible.

3. The FBI’s reputation is in sad decline.

The FBI lied to the court and Judicial Watch saying it had no discoverable documents of the June 27, 2016 tarmac meeting between then-attorney general Lynch and Bill Clinton while Hillary Clinton’s misuse of classified emails was under investigation. In a related case, it was disclosed the Bureau, in fact, had 29 such pages and they were turned over to Judicial Watch. What they revealed was that the FBI’s concern was not over the impropriety of the meeting but, rather finding and punishing the whistleblower who revealed the meeting. As Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton said in his press release:

“These new FBI documents show the FBI was more concerned about a whistleblower who told the truth about the infamous Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting than the scandalous meeting itself...."

“The documents show the FBI worked to make sure no more details of the meeting would be revealed to the American people.  No wonder the FBI didn’t turn these documents over until Judicial Watch caught the agency red-handed hiding them.  These new documents confirm the urgent need to reopen the Clinton email scandal and criminally investigate the resulting Obama FBI/DOJ sham investigation.” 

Saturday, the Washington Post reported that the rot at the FBI is deeper than previously imagined, 

The former top FBI official assigned to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election was taken off that job this past summer after his bosses discovered he and another member of Mueller’s team had exchanged politically charged texts disparaging President Trump and supportive of Hillary Clinton, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.

Peter Strzok, as deputy head of counterintelligence at the FBI, was a key player in the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server to do government work as secretary of state, as well as the probe into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 election. 

During the Clinton investigation, Strzok was involved in a romantic relationship with FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who worked for Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, according to the people familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

The extramarital affair was problematic, these people said, but of greater concern among senior law enforcement officials were text messages the two exchanged during the Clinton investigation and campaign season, in which they expressed anti-Trump sentiments and other comments that appeared to favor Clinton. 

4. The Flynn Flam

This week Trump’s short-lived National Security Advisor pled guilty to lying to the FBI. (In other words lying to liars) and the press went wild, crazily speculating that the end for their nemesis -- the President -- was nigh. As is his wont, Tom Maguire gave the best short form refutation of their hyperventilating:

Out Like Flynn

I understand this is a plea deal and we are meant to believe Flynn is being let off easy in exchange for vital evidence that blows the lid off Trump's collusion with the Russians, but...

given Flynn's other seemingly more serious legal challenges around the unregistered lobbying, busting him for something we already knew about does not seem like an investigative breakthrough.[snip]

·   ABC News reported that Flynn would testify that he was directed to make contact with the Russians.

Asking your National Security Advisor to speak to the Russian Ambassador (or others) is hardly illegal. As to what Trump told him to discuss or not discuss, time and Flynn will tell.

That said, I doubt Trump told him to lie to Pence or the FBI. However, it does sort of time in to an obstruction charge, especially if Mueller theorist[s] are comfortable that Trump can "obstruct" a going-nowhere investigation of a non-crime. 

Former FBI director Comey earlier testified to the House Intelligence Committee on March 2 “that his agents had concluded that Mr. Flynn hadn’t lied but had forgotten what had been discussed”.

The White House said the Flynn calls had been approved by the Obama Administration.

In any event, the calls were made after the election, in the transition period and are perfectly normal and proper. Indeed, in January, the Washington Post reported that the FBI had reviewed the Flynn calls with the Russian ambassador and found nothing illicit.

For the next lefty friend or relative who claims to you that this means Trump will be indicted, ask him how Mueller plans to use as a witness the very person he just indicted for lying.

Former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has more:  

Obviously, it was wrong of Flynn to give the FBI false information; he could, after all, have simply refused to speak with the agents in the first place. That said, as I argued early this year, it remains unclear why the Obama Justice Department chose to investigate Flynn. There was nothing wrong with the incoming national-security adviser’s having meetings with foreign counterparts or discussing such matters as the sanctions in those meetings. Plus, if the FBI had FISA recordings of Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak, there was no need to ask Flynn what the conversations entailed. Flynn, an early backer of Donald Trump and a fierce critic of Obama’s national-security policies, was generally despised by Obama administration officials. Hence, there has always been cynical suspicion that the decision to interview him was driven by the expectation that he would provide the FBI with an account inconsistent with the recorded conversation -- i.e., that Flynn was being set up for prosecution on a process crime.

In the information filed against Flynn, what is most important is what is not there -- the dog that isn’t barking:

[W]hen a prosecutor has a cooperator who was an accomplice in a major criminal scheme, the cooperator is made to plead guilty to the scheme. This is critical because it proves the existence of the scheme. In his guilty-plea allocution (the part of a plea proceeding in which the defendant admits what he did that makes him guilty), the accomplice explains the scheme and the actions taken by himself and his co-conspirators to carry it out. This goes a long way toward proving the case against all of the subjects of the investigation. That is not happening in Flynn’s situation. Instead, like Papadopoulos, he is being permitted to plead guilty to a mere process crime. A breaking report from ABC News indicates that Flynn is prepared to testify that Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians -- initially to lay the groundwork for mutual efforts against ISIS in Syria. That, however, is exactly the sort of thing the incoming national-security adviser is supposed to do in a transition phase between administrations. If it were part of the basis for a “collusion” case arising out of Russia’s election meddling, then Flynn would not be pleading guilty to a process crime -- he’d be pleading guilty to an espionage conspiracy.

What’s next?

It looks like a new, albeit imperfect but still good tax bill will be passed after reconciliation of the House and Senate versions and I expect it will substantially boost the economy. And the administration seems to be making successful moves to reduce the administrative state -- a state not elected by anyone that has weaseled its way into every aspect of our lives. The Awan case, which looks like a potentially major case of Pakistani espionage into the workings of House Democrats, will not be stalled forever. Congressman John Conyers is due to announce today whether he will resign or retire after being the subject of a number of allegations of sexual harassment. The Steinle murderer’s acquittal in San Francisco was followed swiftly by the issuance of an arrest warrant by the Department of Justice against the shooter, Jose Garcia Zarate, who had previously been deported five times and found haven in this sanctuary city.

This has been a busy week and a sad one for the neo-feminists, the media, and #NeverTrump conservatives. It was a good one for those who believe we have for too long allowed a bunch of self-selected ninnies to drive both the news and the government.

A. The Neo-Feminists

A website called Medusa shut down after it was clear that it was impossible to continue to satirize the present-day feminists because they are so idiotic that parody too closely mirrors the neo-feminists' views:

Medusa’s unnamed creator continued: “We are shutting down our rather hilarious project because we can no longer compete with our competition. We have come to realize that our competition is not other satirical websites, but rather the people we are trying to satirize.”

The creator wrote, “I don’t blame anyone for thinking” the site was legitimate and wanted to “keep our readers in constant doubt” and even posted a Facebook message from last May to prove the entire thing was a joke. It was dubbed “the ultimate Social Experiment” and Facebook followers were told it was to see how long actual feminists would take to realize it was a joke.

A recent series of high-profile allegations of sexual harassment resulted in the site publishing a spoof article headlined, “Why we should believe women who accuse right wingers of rape more than those who accuse liberals.”

The site’s creator called the story a “total caricature intended to be as ridiculous as possible” but quickly realized mainstream news organizations, such as the Washington Post, published stories utilizing the same rationale as the mock column.

In fact, while they scream and march in pussy hats against the president, he is, as Powerline notes, a “feminist hero.”

The firing this morning of Matt Lauer from NBC prompts me to roll back the tape this post from last month, in which actress Amber Tamblyn said that “Honestly, I trace everything back to the election of Donald Trump. I think that without him being elected, if it had been Hillary Clinton, this would’ve never happened to Harvey Weinstein.” And if it “didn’t happen” to Weinstein, would it have happened to Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, Louis C.K., Kevin Spacey, etc?

Clearly the rules have changed. We now live in a zero-tolerance regime for sexual harassment. It is long overdue in many ways, but let’s be clear -- sexual harassment has persisted chiefly because of the hypocrisy of liberal elites who run our media and Hollywood institutions, going back at least to their defense of Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Now they are reaping the whirlwind. It is established fact that Weinstein’s own board of directors knew of his bad behavior, but only insisted that future settlements over employee harassment come out of his own pocket. So much for respecting women. And let’s not forget that the Academy Awards gave a special Oscar to convicted child rapist Roman Polanski, because, after all, as the appropriately named “Whoopi” Goldberg told us, it wasn’t really “rape rape.” I wonder how that comment would play today, or whether the Academy Awards will rescind Polanski’s Oscar in our new mood?

What changed the rules? Donald Trump. Above all else keep in mind that he is the main target of the new zero tolerance regime -- the unfinished business of the “Access Hollywood” tape. And if a lot of media and Hollywood icons (and a few stay congressmen) have to go down, that’s just collateral damage. Though Trump calls it “winning.”

In any case, feminists should be thanking Donald Trump for being the catalyst behind the rules change they have long demanded.

And the liberals in Hollywood and the media certainly are feeling the brunt of the change.

Traditional media have faced formidable challenges created by new technologies. This column’s most celebrated alumnus has described how unchecked bias has also undermined media authority. Now beyond questions of opinion and judgment, the industry faces a new test of its moral authority. How much cultural power can a movie or a television program exert if the audience decides its creators are repulsive?

How widespread is the sexual harassment in Hollywood and the media? Breitbart named 23 people in the media accused of such improprieties and the list seems to grow:

23. Geraldo Rivera -- Fox News Commentator

Accused of groping Bette Midler in 1991 *

20 – 22. Three Unnamed Vice Media Employees 

Fired for verbal and sexual harassment.

19. Teddy Davis -- Senior CNN Producer Jake Tapper’s State of the Union

Fired over three allegations of “behavior that does not align with the standards and values of CNN.”

18. Matt Zimmerman -- Booker for NBC’s Today Show

Fired over allegations of sexual harassment.

17. David Sweeney -- National Public Radio Chief News Editor

Left the company over allegations of sexual harassment.

16. Garrison Keillor -- National Public Radio Icon

Fired over allegations of inappropriate behavior.

15. Matt Lauer -- NBC News Anchor

Fired for sexual misconduct.

14. Charlie Rose -- CBS/PBS News Anchor

Fired over numerous allegations of harassment, misconduct, and groping.

13. Glenn Thrush -- New York Times White House Correspondent

On suspension over multiple allegations of harassment and unwanted touching.

12. Mark Halperin -- Bloomberg/NBC News Commentator

Fired over numerous allegations of sexual misconduct, unwanted sexual touching.

11. Lockhart Steele -- Editorial Director Vox Media

Fired over allegation of sexual harassment.

10. Unnamed Employee -- Vox Media

Resigned over allegations of sexual harassment.

9. David Corn -- MSNBC Contributor/Washington Bureau Chief for Mother Jones

Multiple accusations of sexual misconduct, unwanted touching.

8. Michael Oreskes – Senior Vice President and Editorial Director for NPR

Numerous allegations of sexual misconduct.

7. Leon Wiesletier – Three Decades as Literary Editor at the New Republic

Numerous allegations of sexual harassment.

6. Hamilton Fish – Publisher New Republic

Numerous allegations of sexual harassment.

5. Matt Taibbi -- Rolling Stone

Confessed in non-fiction memoir to the sexual abuse and the enabling of the abuse of female staffers. Now says he made it all up.

4. Jann Wenner -- Rolling Stone Owner

Accused of sexual misconduct.

3. Ian Prior -- Senior Editor the Guardian

Allegations of sexual harassment, groping.

2. Unnamed Guardian Employee

Allegations of sexual harassment, groping.

1. Matt Sullivan -- Guardian

Fired over allegations of sexual misconduct, groping.

[Note: this should read, "In 1991, Rivera was accused..." The groping actually took place in the early 70s.]

I’ve lost track, frankly, of the Hollywood figures accused of such improprieties. Although the way things are going, I’m expecting the next Oscar ceremony will be an all-woman event. What makes this even more ridiculous is that most of these men have regularly proclaimed their allegiance to the neo-feminists and their favored policies, most particularly support for abortion on demand and without any restrictions, and Planned Parenthood. I recall their hilarity at Pence’s rule of never dining alone with a woman not his wife. They pitched the line that conservatives are Neolithic prudes who hate women -- as they were sexually abusing all the women in their reach, most often women who lacked the backing and stature to fight back.

2. Fake Indians and the Absurd Demand for faculty “Diversity”

Much tongue clucking was heard over the President’s reference to Elizabeth Warren as “Pocahontas,” an allusion to her phony claim to Indian heritage. But to my mind, it was apt and called for. She’s a liar, like many on the left, and a hypocrite as well, supporting “diversity” and affirmative action programs while lying to take advantage of them at cost to those who might qualify. In May of 2012 -- forgotten by most of the media or brushed under the rug -- Warren admitted that she had told the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard Law school about her purported Indian heritage before she was hired. Harvard promoted her as the first “woman of color” on their faculty, she listed herself as Native American in the Association of American Law Schools deskbook, and the Cherokee tribe from whom she claims descent called her claim “harmful and offensive”. The notion that her lie did not boost her chances for hiring at Harvard, is demonstrably risible.

3. The FBI’s reputation is in sad decline.

The FBI lied to the court and Judicial Watch saying it had no discoverable documents of the June 27, 2016 tarmac meeting between then-attorney general Lynch and Bill Clinton while Hillary Clinton’s misuse of classified emails was under investigation. In a related case, it was disclosed the Bureau, in fact, had 29 such pages and they were turned over to Judicial Watch. What they revealed was that the FBI’s concern was not over the impropriety of the meeting but, rather finding and punishing the whistleblower who revealed the meeting. As Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton said in his press release:

“These new FBI documents show the FBI was more concerned about a whistleblower who told the truth about the infamous Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting than the scandalous meeting itself...."

“The documents show the FBI worked to make sure no more details of the meeting would be revealed to the American people.  No wonder the FBI didn’t turn these documents over until Judicial Watch caught the agency red-handed hiding them.  These new documents confirm the urgent need to reopen the Clinton email scandal and criminally investigate the resulting Obama FBI/DOJ sham investigation.” 

Saturday, the Washington Post reported that the rot at the FBI is deeper than previously imagined, 

The former top FBI official assigned to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election was taken off that job this past summer after his bosses discovered he and another member of Mueller’s team had exchanged politically charged texts disparaging President Trump and supportive of Hillary Clinton, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.

Peter Strzok, as deputy head of counterintelligence at the FBI, was a key player in the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server to do government work as secretary of state, as well as the probe into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 election. 

During the Clinton investigation, Strzok was involved in a romantic relationship with FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who worked for Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, according to the people familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

The extramarital affair was problematic, these people said, but of greater concern among senior law enforcement officials were text messages the two exchanged during the Clinton investigation and campaign season, in which they expressed anti-Trump sentiments and other comments that appeared to favor Clinton. 

4. The Flynn Flam

This week Trump’s short-lived National Security Advisor pled guilty to lying to the FBI. (In other words lying to liars) and the press went wild, crazily speculating that the end for their nemesis -- the President -- was nigh. As is his wont, Tom Maguire gave the best short form refutation of their hyperventilating:

Out Like Flynn

I understand this is a plea deal and we are meant to believe Flynn is being let off easy in exchange for vital evidence that blows the lid off Trump's collusion with the Russians, but...

given Flynn's other seemingly more serious legal challenges around the unregistered lobbying, busting him for something we already knew about does not seem like an investigative breakthrough.[snip]

·   ABC News reported that Flynn would testify that he was directed to make contact with the Russians.

Asking your National Security Advisor to speak to the Russian Ambassador (or others) is hardly illegal. As to what Trump told him to discuss or not discuss, time and Flynn will tell.

That said, I doubt Trump told him to lie to Pence or the FBI. However, it does sort of time in to an obstruction charge, especially if Mueller theorist[s] are comfortable that Trump can "obstruct" a going-nowhere investigation of a non-crime. 

Former FBI director Comey earlier testified to the House Intelligence Committee on March 2 “that his agents had concluded that Mr. Flynn hadn’t lied but had forgotten what had been discussed”.

The White House said the Flynn calls had been approved by the Obama Administration.

In any event, the calls were made after the election, in the transition period and are perfectly normal and proper. Indeed, in January, the Washington Post reported that the FBI had reviewed the Flynn calls with the Russian ambassador and found nothing illicit.

For the next lefty friend or relative who claims to you that this means Trump will be indicted, ask him how Mueller plans to use as a witness the very person he just indicted for lying.

Former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has more:  

Obviously, it was wrong of Flynn to give the FBI false information; he could, after all, have simply refused to speak with the agents in the first place. That said, as I argued early this year, it remains unclear why the Obama Justice Department chose to investigate Flynn. There was nothing wrong with the incoming national-security adviser’s having meetings with foreign counterparts or discussing such matters as the sanctions in those meetings. Plus, if the FBI had FISA recordings of Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak, there was no need to ask Flynn what the conversations entailed. Flynn, an early backer of Donald Trump and a fierce critic of Obama’s national-security policies, was generally despised by Obama administration officials. Hence, there has always been cynical suspicion that the decision to interview him was driven by the expectation that he would provide the FBI with an account inconsistent with the recorded conversation -- i.e., that Flynn was being set up for prosecution on a process crime.

In the information filed against Flynn, what is most important is what is not there -- the dog that isn’t barking:

[W]hen a prosecutor has a cooperator who was an accomplice in a major criminal scheme, the cooperator is made to plead guilty to the scheme. This is critical because it proves the existence of the scheme. In his guilty-plea allocution (the part of a plea proceeding in which the defendant admits what he did that makes him guilty), the accomplice explains the scheme and the actions taken by himself and his co-conspirators to carry it out. This goes a long way toward proving the case against all of the subjects of the investigation. That is not happening in Flynn’s situation. Instead, like Papadopoulos, he is being permitted to plead guilty to a mere process crime. A breaking report from ABC News indicates that Flynn is prepared to testify that Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians -- initially to lay the groundwork for mutual efforts against ISIS in Syria. That, however, is exactly the sort of thing the incoming national-security adviser is supposed to do in a transition phase between administrations. If it were part of the basis for a “collusion” case arising out of Russia’s election meddling, then Flynn would not be pleading guilty to a process crime -- he’d be pleading guilty to an espionage conspiracy.

What’s next?

It looks like a new, albeit imperfect but still good tax bill will be passed after reconciliation of the House and Senate versions and I expect it will substantially boost the economy. And the administration seems to be making successful moves to reduce the administrative state -- a state not elected by anyone that has weaseled its way into every aspect of our lives. The Awan case, which looks like a potentially major case of Pakistani espionage into the workings of House Democrats, will not be stalled forever. Congressman John Conyers is due to announce today whether he will resign or retire after being the subject of a number of allegations of sexual harassment. The Steinle murderer’s acquittal in San Francisco was followed swiftly by the issuance of an arrest warrant by the Department of Justice against the shooter, Jose Garcia Zarate, who had previously been deported five times and found haven in this sanctuary city.

RECENT VIDEOS