With the news from the always well-informed and reliable Kim Strassel and Andy McCarthy that there was probably an FBI informer in the Trump campaign, the tide in the investigative struggle turns decisively from the floundering, flailing effort to pin something grievous on the president to the rising wave of curiosity about the extent to which the Justice Department was politicized under the Obama administration in favor of the Clinton campaign. This could contain the elements of a scandal almost as great as would have occurred if there had been the slightest evidence to support the notion that a presidential candidate had concerted with a foreign power to rig an American presidential election. I place my bets with Ms. Strassel and Mr. McCarthy, and expect the current of suspicion of the Justice Department to accelerate with the FBI inspector general’s next report, on official handling of the Clinton email issue.
If Mueller doesn’t repurpose his mandate to focus on the conduct of the Democrats who commissioned the Steele dossier, he will probably have to be satisfied with written responses from the president to written questions relevant to Mueller’s mandate, or an invitation from the president, who should not respond to a subpoena to appear before a grand jury, to indict him and show his evidence. (It is very unlikely that Mueller has any.) The old special prosecutor’s game of co-opting the Congress to corner the president won’t fly. Even if the Democrats win the House and vote impeachment for obstruction because Trump refuses to go before a grand jury, there is no chance of conviction without evidence, and Comey, McCabe, Clapper, Brennan, and all the rest will still have to face the music for lying under oath. The people are the jury, and Russian collusion is a clunker, unless Mueller has an intellect-transplant and starts to chase real legal problems involving Trump’s enemies.