A legal victory, but also a potentially devastating bombshell, for Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel investigation. 

Mueller reportedly secured a guilty plea from a former Trump adviser Rick Gates. However, Michael Flynn may soon withdraw his guilty plea, thanks to a report that evidence in his case was doctored by former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

Gates to Plead Guilty

Rick Gates, a Trump adviser during the 2016 campaign, will reportedly plead guilty to fraud-related charges in the coming days. According to the Los Angeles Times, Gates also agreed to testify against former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.

The pair face charges connected to lobbying activities on behalf of assorted pro-Putin interests. As the Times reports, the October indictment alleges Manafort and Gates

had engaged in a complex series of allegedly illegal transactions rooted in Ukraine. The indictment alleged that both men, who for years were unregistered agents of the Ukrainian government, hid millions of dollars of Ukraine-based payments from U.S. authorities.

A source tells the L.A. Times, Gates “understands that the government may move to reduce his sentence if he substantially cooperates, but it won’t be spelled out.”

A Podestrian Investigation

Those hoping to topple Trump shouldn’t get too excited by the alleged plea. L.A. Times reports Gates doesn’t seem to have any evidence that could “turn the screws” on Trump.

Also, the lobbying work emerged from The Podesta Group. Remember the once-powerful firm founded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta and his brother Tony, a major Clinton bundler? Ah, the ways of the Swamp. The Podesta Group collapsed in a heap late last year when it became clear the firm sat in Mueller’s crosshairs.

Last week’s indictments dealt with a Russian operation to sow chaos during the 2016 election and after. The Manafort-Gates indictments point to an interest by Mueller in the influence of Russian and pro-Putin money on U.S. government policy. That, too, points in former Secretary of State Clinton’s direction, starting with, but not limited to, the Uranium One scandal.

Meanwhile, Mueller has charged a lawyer for lying to investigators about his interaction with Gates. Sources say Alex Van Der Zwaan will plead guilty Tuesday afternoon. (Interestingly, Van Der Zwaan is accused of deleting or failing to produce emails that were being sought, then denying to know why they were not produced. Yet, Hillary Clinton was doing the same thing with classified emails. No charges.) 

But being charged with lying to investigators is not always the same as having lied to investigators. See General Flynn’s case. 

False Evidence Used Against Michael Flynn?

In December, former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents. This plea has always been baffling.  First, Flynn had no reason to lie about his conversation with the Russian ambassador when he spoke to two FBI agents. Second, James Comey has testified under oath those two agents — including Peter Strzok — thought that Flynn didn’t lie.

So how is it former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was marching up to the White House claiming Flynn lied?  (Yates also pushed for Flynn to be charged under the 1799 Logan Act. Nobody in American history has ever been successfully prosecuted under the Logan Act.) And how did Mueller’s team end up charging Flynn with lying?

Doctored Evidence Against Flynn?

Enter former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. The guy who, as The Stream’s reported, has a personal vendetta against Flynn and vowed in a meeting to “(expletive) Flynn.”

Saturday night, controversial journalist Mike Cernovich made a bombshell allegation. He said McCabe had altered Peter Strzok’s 302 forms from his Flynn interview, and deleted all history of revisions. And DOJ Inspector General now knows it.

The FBI doesn’t record its interviews. The agents write reports based on what the interview subject tells them. Then they treat that 302 like a transcript. 

So, if McCabe changed Strzok’s 302s — changed what Flynn said to make it appear he lied — you have got yourself a scandal of monumental proportions.

If true, this would explain why Strzok could say Flynn didn’t lie, but Yates and Mueller could claim he did. They are knowingly (likely in the case of Yates) or unknowingly (likely in the case of Mueller) using doctored 302’s.

It also explains one reason Flynn would feel compelled to feel guilty. Prosecutors were waiving a 302 in his face that says he said what he didn’t say. A 302 is usually taken as gospel by courts. How can you fight it? (Or at least fight it without spending your every last dime against long odds.)

So Is it True?

However, controversial Cernovich may be, his claim does line up with what Circa‘s Sara Carter reported two weeks ago. She said several FBI sources told her “that McCabe may have asked agents to change their 302’s.”

Such evidence tampering also fits with the Peter Strzok-Lisa Page text about crafting an “insurance policy” in case Trump won. Further, it is consistent with the shenanigans involving the FISA Court as detailed in the Nunes Memo and the Christopher Steele criminal referral. McCabe (and Yates) are central to both. 

Most directly, as we have reported, the Flynn case has seen some peculiar developments in recent weeks.

1. A day after Flynn’s plea, we learned that Peter Strzok got removed months earlier from Mueller’s team.
2. Less than a week after Flynn’s plea, his judge was off the case. Judge Rudolph Contreras was also a FISA Court judge who likely signed off on at least one of the warrants used to spy on Trump team members.
3. Contreras was replaced by Judge Emmit G. Sullivan, an expert on government misconduct who eats crooked prosecutors for breakfast.
4. McCabe suddenly retired. Forced out. His resignation came the day after his boss read the Nunes Memo outlining FBI abuses in the FISA process. More crucially, according to CBS News and CNN, director Wray pushed McCabe out based on evidence of misconduct presented by the DOJ IG.
5. Two days later, Flynn’s sentencing was delayed.
6. This past Friday, Sullivan issued a order, requesting Mueller to turn over to Flynn “any exculpatory evidence” that could be useful to Flynn’s defense. Former judge Andrew Napolitano said Tuesday Sullivan’s order is “unheard-of.” The order is significant because Flynn’s plea deal expressly says he cannot seek any further evidence in his case. 

Margot Cleveland of The Federalist lays out the potential bombshells tucked in Sullivan’s order. But the conclusion is clear: There is reason to suspect Mueller’s office withheld evidence in Michael Flynn’s prosecution. Did Judge Sullivan get wind of it?  

This would be good news for Flynn. Not so good news for the Mueller Special Counsel investigation.