Least surprising scoop.

"Scoop: Trump tells confidants he plans to pardon Michael Flynn" (Axios).

"Handwritten notes from fired former FBI agent Peter Strzok show that Obama himself directed key aspects of the campaign to target Flynn during a Jan. 5, 2017 meeting in the Oval Office."

The Federalist reports.

The new notes, which record Comey’s accounting to Strzok of the meeting’s substance, constitute definitive evidence that Obama himself was personally directing significant aspects of a criminal investigation into his political enemy’s top foreign policy adviser.

NSA-D-DAG = [illegible] Other countries
D-DAG: lean forward on [illegible]
VP: “Logan Act”
P: These are unusual times
VP: I’ve been on the intel cmte for ten years and I never
P: Make sure you look at things — have the right people on it
P: Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling transition team?
D: Flynn –> Kislyak calls but appear legit
[illegible] Happy New Year. Yeah right

“Make sure you look at things and have the right people on it,” Obama is quoted as saying.

"Appeals court orders judge to grant DOJ motion to dismiss Flynn case."

The Washington Examiner reports.

From the opinion (which you can read in full at the link):

Although Rule 48 requires “leave of court” before dismissing charges, “decisions to dismiss pending criminal charges no less than decisions to initiate charges and to identify which charges to bring lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion."... "To that end, the Supreme Court has declined to construe Rule 48(a)’s ‘leave of court’ requirement to confer any substantial role for courts in the determination whether to dismiss charges."... More specifically, “[t]he principal object of the ‘leave of court' requirement is to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment when the Government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant’s objection.”... Rule 48 thus “gives no power to a district court to deny a prosecutor’s motion to dismiss charges based on a disagreement with the prosecution's exercise of charging authority."

About those newly declassified Flynn transcripts...

At The Federalist, from Sean Davis: "Declassified Flynn Transcripts Contradict Key Mueller Claims Against Flynn/Newly released declassified transcripts of call transcripts and summaries between Flynn and Kislyak contradict key claims made against Flynn by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller." ("Although Obama officials claimed via leaks to the press that Flynn, a decorated combat veteran and retired three-star Army general, was illegally operating as a secret Russian agent, the transcripts show that Flynn’s primary focus throughout his conversations with Kislyak was ensuring that Russia and the U.S. could work together to defeat Islamist terrorist [sic] and the growing influence of ISIS throughout the Middle East. Obama officials never explained how working with international partners to defeat ISIS constituted a federal crime.")

At NY Magazine, from Jonathan Chait: "New Transcript Shows Trump Adviser Michael Flynn Colluding With Russia in 2016." ("Flynn’s discussions with Kislyak were not part of a criminal conspiracy. They were, however, part of a secret channel of communications, the premise of which was that the two parties had a secret common interest against the United States government. One word that might describe this relationship would be 'collusion.'")

At the NYT, from Julian E. Barnes, Adam Goldman and Nicholas Fandos: "Flynn Discussed Sanctions at Length With Russian Diplomat, Transcripts Show/The former national security adviser now says he does not remember those discussions as he fights a criminal charge he had previously pleaded guilty to" ("Critics of the Trump administration seized on the transcripts’ discussions as evidence that Mr. Flynn was undermining existing Obama administration foreign policy. They argued that the Constitution allows for only one president at a time and that if an incoming administration begins foreign policy negotiations before taking office, it confuses the issue of who holds power.... Conservatives have said that Mr. Flynn did nothing wrong and that it was in the public interest for him to represent the views of the incoming administration.")

"Republicans have seized on the document as potential evidence that the outgoing president had ordered the FBI to spy on the new administration..."

"... as Trump has alleged. And they have raised questions about the 'unusual' nature of Rice memorializing the conversation in an email to herself, suggesting that in warning Comey to proceed 'by the book,' Obama was implying that top law enforcement officials had done the opposite. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Rice said it shows the Obama administration handled the Flynn situation appropriately. The email, most of which was already declassified, describes a Jan. 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting that followed up on an intelligence briefing about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Attendees included then-President Barack Obama; Comey; Sally Yates, who was the acting attorney general; Vice President Joe Biden; and Rice, who was Flynn's predecessor in the job. The email, which memorialized the meeting two weeks after it happened, said Obama wanted to be sure 'every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities "by the book."' 'The president stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective,' the email continued. 'He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.'"

From "Trump administration declassifies full Susan Rice email sent on Inauguration Day/The email describes a Jan. 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting about Michael Flynn and Russian interference in the 2016 election" (Politico).

MORE:

"Former President Barack Obama is being quoted from a private call that the 'rule of law is at risk' after the Justice Department moved to dismiss the case against... Michael Flynn."

"Obama reportedly told members of the Obama Alumni Association that 'There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free.'... [But] former Attorney General Eric Holder... moved to dismiss such a case based on prosecutorial errors in front of the very same judge, Judge Emmet Sullivan.... The Obama statement is curious on various levels. First... Flynn was never charged with perjury... Second, there is ample precedent for this motion... Third, there is also case law.... Fourth, there are cases where the Department has moved to dismiss cases on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct or other grounds touching on due process, ethical requirements or other concerns.... The rare statement by President Obama is also interesting in light of the new evidence... that Obama was following the investigation of Flynn who he previously dismissed from a high-level position and personally intervened with President Donald Trump to seek to block his appointment as National Security Adviser. Obama reportedly discussed the use of the Logan Act against Flynn. For a person concerned with precedent, that was also a curious focus. The Logan Act is widely viewed as unconstitutional and has never been used to successfully convicted a single person since the early days of the Republic. Now that is dubious precedent."

Writes Jonathan Turley.

"Some may wonder why an innocent man would ever plead guilty. Anyone who knows how the system works in practice..."

"... would understand why an innocent man—or a defendant in a close case—might be coerced into pleading guilty. The cruel reality is that if a defendant pleads not guilty and is found guilty, the sentence will be far greater than if he had pled guilty—perhaps even 10 times greater. Moreover, in this case, it is alleged that the government threatened, if Flynn did not plead guilty, to indict his son. These are the kinds of pressures routinely used by prosecutors. Civil libertarians have long been critical of these pressures, but fair-weather civil libertarians refuse to object when these improper tactics are used against Trump's associates. Partisan hypocrisy reigns."

Writes Alan Dershowitz in "Flynn Was Innocent All Along: He Was Pressured to Plead Guilt" (Gatestone Institute).

“Justice Dept. Drops Case Against Michael Flynn.”

NYT reports.

The extraordinary move comes amid a sustained attack by Mr. Flynn’s lawyers on prosecutors and the F.B.I., accusing them of egregious conduct. In recent days, Mr. Flynn’s lawyers said the Justice Department had uncovered new documents that pointed to misconduct.

In a possible sign of disagreement with the Justice Department decision, Brandon L. Van Grack, an assistant United States attorney who led the prosecution of Mr. Flynn, abruptly withdrew from the case on Thursday. Mr. Flynn’s lawyers have repeatedly attacked Mr. Van Grack by name in court filings, citing his “incredible malfeasance.”

"New documents suggest that Flynn ‘was set up by corrupt agents’ who threatened Flynn’s son and made a secret deal with Flynn’s attorneys."

Writes Andrew McCarthy at National Review.

[L]ast Friday night, the DOJ provided some so-called Brady material — i.e., exculpatory information that prosecutors are required by law to reveal to defendants they have charged with crimes.... The information is still not public... But we can glean its outlines from a motion [Flynn's lawyer Sidney] Powell filed... [arguing that Flynn was] "deliberately set up and framed by corrupt agents."...

There was no good-faith basis for an investigation of General Flynn. Under federal law, a false statement made to investigators is not actionable unless it is material. That means it must be pertinent to a matter that is properly under investigation. If the FBI did not have a legitimate investigative basis to interview Flynn, then that fact should have been disclosed as exculpatory information. It would have enabled his counsel to argue that any inaccurate statements he made were immaterial....

"It now seems the General Flynn was under investigation long before was common knowledge. It would have been impossible for me to know this but..."

"... if that was the case, and with me being one of two people who would become president, why was I not told so that I could make a change?"

Tweeted Trump this morning.

Earlier this morning, in a less sober tone:

My Campaign for President was conclusively spied on. Nothing like this has ever happened in American Politics. A really bad situation. TREASON means long jail sentences, and this was TREASON!

"The outburst was too much even for the lawyers for Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who had to tell the judge that Mr. Flynn did not represent any foreign entity while at the White House."

"Judge Sullivan later apologized, sort of, telling the courtroom not 'to read too much into' his outburst about 'treason.' But that came after the falsehood made global headlines."

"A federal judge on Tuesday postponed the sentencing for Michael Flynn after he lambasted President Trump’s former national security adviser for trying to undermine his own country..."

"... and said he could not guarantee he would spare Flynn from prison. The stunning development means that Flynn will have to be sentenced at a later date, when he can possibly convince a judge more thoroughly of how his cooperation has benefited law enforcement.... After reviewing some of the allegations against Flynn, including that he worked to advance the interests of the Turkish government in the United States during the 2016 presidential campaign, [U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan] pointed to an American flag behind him in the courtroom and said heatedly, 'Arguably, that undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably you sold your country out. The court’s going to consider that... I cannot assure you, if you proceed today, you will not receive a sentence of incarceration.' Sullivan also asked a prosecutor with the special counsel’s office whether Flynn could be charged with 'treason.'"

WaPo reports.

"And Roseanne, if you ever get in trouble, don't worry, I have the pardon power."

Well, what do you think he said?

I'm reading "Trump called Roseanne Barr after successful series premiere" (CNN) and "Trump’s Lawyer Raised Prospect of Pardons for Flynn and Manafort" (NYT).

UPDATE: From Roseanne:

“We just kinda had a private conversation, but we talked about a lot of things,” she said. “He was just happy for me. I’ve known him for a lot of years and he’s done a lot of nice things for me over the years, and it’s a friendly conversation about working, television, and ratings.” 

"The media's Russia probe meltdown: 3 screw-ups in one week."

Axios explains:

The misses

Flynn's testimony: Last Friday, ABC News reported that former national security advisor Michael Flynn was prepared to testify that President Trump, while still a candidate, directed him to contact Russian officials. But later in the day, the network issued a "clarification" that the direction came when Trump was president-elect. That changed the impact of the story entirely as it's a common occurrence for presidential transition teams to reach out to foreign governments.

Deutsche Bank subpoena: Reuters and Bloomberg both reported on Tuesday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank for information on accounts relating to President Trump and his family members — seemingly confirming that Mueller had expanded his probe to investigate the president's financial dealings. The WSJ defused that bombshell in a follow-up report stating that the subpoenas actually dealt with "people or entities close to Mr. Trump."

WikiLeaks emails: CNN reported this morning that senior Trump campaign officials, including Trump himself, received an email from an unknown sender on September 4, 2016 that linked them to what could have been unreleased WikiLeaks documents. WaPo issued their own report later in the afternoon that the email was actually sent on September 14 — and linked to a trove of documents that WikiLeaks had publicly released a day earlier.

"[W]hy did Flynn lie? People who lie to the FBI generally do so because, if they told the truth, they would be admitting to a crime."

"But the two conversations that Flynn falsely denied having were not criminal. He may have believed they were criminal but, if he did, he was wrong," writes Alan Dershowitz, who explains why the things lied about were not criminal. I understand that.

But I don't think Dershowitz explains why Flynn lied. Maybe Flynn didn't understand that the things he denied were not criminal, or maybe he didn't want to have to fight for the proposition that these things were not criminal. It seemed like the easier path (when he didn't know he'd been wiretapped). Or maybe Flynn wanted to deflect political damage, since anything having to do with the Russians would be exploited as reinforcing arguments that Trump's victory was illegitimate.

Dershowitz jumps to the question why did Mueller only charge Flynn with lying. The idea seems to be that's all Mueller has: a crime unrelated to any "possible crimes committed by current White House incumbents."

ADDED: I thought I'd try watching the Sunday morning talk shows, and the first thing I saw, as I clicked on one of my 5 recordings, was "FLYNN FLIPS." But Flynn got charged with something that is really a crime and he chose to plead guilty. How is that "flipping"? I appreciate the poetry of the double "FL," but you don't know that he's "flipped" unless you know that the guilty plea involved some sort of bargain to testify or gather more evidence against somebody else. But if there's no crime that he's lied about — and he wasn't charged with any crime other than lying — then what's the "flip"? It's a garbage headline. Embarrassing. They're showing that they're slavering over imagined crimes. That's not journalism.

"I had to fire General Flynn because he lied... It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful."

I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 2, 2017

"Michael Flynn Expected to Plead Guilty to Lying to the F.B.I."

The NYT reports.

Let's read the Comey transcript.

I watched about an hour or so live on TV, skipped some, and heard the end on the car radio, but I didn't want to write anything without the transcript. I can't bear to read the news analysis, which I have good reason to assume will be slanted. I could spend my time parsing the slantedness, but I've got the transcript, and I want to live-blog my reading of the transcript. Ready?

SEN. RICHARD BURR [Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence]: There are several outstanding issues not addressed in your statement... 

Here's where we discussed Comey's 7-page statement. I said I wanted to hear "what Comey and Trump meant by their shared silent gazing into each other's eyes, by their coming to rest upon the slippery phrase 'honest loyalty,' and the mystery of 'that thing' in 'we had that thing, you know.'"

The questions Burr stated at the outset were:

"Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation."

The NYT reports.

“I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authorities and appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter,” [Deputy Attorney General Rod J.] Rosenstein said in a statement. “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination.”

Mueller was the FBI director just before Comey. He began as FBI director on September 4, 2001, that is, immediately before 9/11. He was appointed by George W. Bush and not only continued under Obama, but was asked to stay on an extra 2 years beyond the normal 10 year term.

ADDED: I see no reason not to say this is the perfect move.

AND: NBC reports:

Former Trump aides Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort have emerged as key figures in the FBI's investigation into Russian campaign interference....

Officials say multiple grand jury subpoenas and records requests have been issued in connection with the two men during the past six months in the ongoing probe into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russian attempts to influence the election, an inquiry that will now be overseen by former FBI Director Robert Mueller....

ALSO: This is useful: "The Comey memo offers no proof for impeachment of Trump."

Why do we know why Harward turned down the NSA job?

A friend of Harward's says he was reluctant to take NSA job bc the WH seems so chaotic; says Harward called the offer a "shit sandwich."

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) February 17, 2017

It's one thing to decide I'm not the man for this job, but if you were really the sort of person who would and should be offered this job, and if you really believed the Administration was so screwed up you couldn't tolerate working there, why would you make the regrettable situation worse by airing that opinion?

I'm genuinely puzzled!

Possible answers: 1. Harward didn't intend for this opinion to become public (but shouldn't a security expert be more rigorous about what is confidential?), 2. No harm in shitting on a shit sandwich (yes there is!), 3. Harward competently formed an opinion on how shitty the Trump administration is and properly exercised independent judgment and decided that the public interest was served by letting us know that the situation was so bad that a man like him would refuse to participate (but what kind of man believes his country is in this much trouble, will not help, and still thinks of himself as a worthy example of a person the Trump administration should have on the team?), 4. Harward is outraged at what happened to Flynn, wants to express that outrage in an especially cutting way, and also doesn't want to operate in a system where he's exposed to what is now a known risk (and this is the answer that makes the most sense to me).

ADDED: I don't know why I didn't throw in "This might be fake news," but I didn't. Many commenters are observing this lapse. I like the way Robin Eatmon put it (combining it with my points ##1 and 3):

If it's not fake news... this episode reflects poorly on Harward. Settle it with your family before the official offer and keep your mouth shut about it. In this day and age there is no one you can trust.