RUTHFULLY YOURS

Since the Harvey Weinstein scandal broke, the feminist battle cry has been: “Listen to women.” Listen as they tell of sexism and abuse in the workplace. Listen as they accuse men who outrank them. This kind of openness and respect is overdue, but it comes with an asterisk: “Listen to women (unless they’re pro-life).”

Last month, pro-life students at the University of Oxford held a discussion on Ireland’s 2018 abortion referendum. It was disrupted by protesters organized by the Women’s Campaign, a student-union-sponsored group that claims it “advocates for the rights of everyone who identifies as a woman.” The protesters chanted abusive slogans—“pro-life, that’s a lie, you don’t care if women die”—for 40 minutes, preventing anyone else from being heard.

Several organizers faced the protesters, holding makeshift signs that read: “I’m a woman, where is my right to speak?” It’s a good question. If women of childbearing age aren’t allowed to question the ethics of abortion without being bullied and humiliated, who is?

“Bodily autonomy is not up for debate,” the Women’s Campaign said in a statement after the protest. But the claim that abortion is a closed question just isn’t true. Philosophical, legal and scientific discussion of it dates to ancient Egypt and ancient Greece. Within the university, no issue of moral importance should be shielded from examination. Abusing women who try to have such conversations gives the lie to any stated commitment to female empowerment.

Yet pro-life women across the West routinely face these kinds of tactics. Earlier this year the pro-life New Wave Feminists were booted as partners in the Women’s March on Washington. In October, Katie Ascough, the president of the student union at University College Dublin, was impeached after removing from a student handbook a page of abortion information that she says was illegal under Irish law. Two months ago, Rachael Harder, a pro-life member of Canada’s Parliament, was blocked from leading the Status of Women Committee. Apparently positions of power are open only to the right kind of women. CONTINUE AT SITE

Donald Trump is his own worst enemy, as his many ill-advised tweets on the weekend about Michael Flynn, the FBI and Robert Mueller’s Russia probe demonstrate. But that doesn’t mean that Mr. Mueller and the Federal Bureau of Investigation deserve a pass about their motives and methods, as new information raises troubling questions.

The Washington Post and the New York Times reported Saturday that a lead FBI investigator on the Mueller probe, Peter Strzok, was demoted this summer after it was discovered he’d sent anti- Trump texts to a mistress. As troubling, Mr. Mueller and the Justice Department kept this information from House investigators, despite Intelligence Committee subpoenas that would have exposed those texts. They also refused to answer questions about Mr. Strzok’s dismissal and refused to make him available for an interview.

The news about Mr. Strzok leaked only when the Justice Department concluded it couldn’t hold out any longer, and the stories were full of spin that praised Mr. Mueller for acting “swiftly” to remove the agent. Only after these stories ran did Justice agree on Saturday to make Mr. Strzok available to the House.

Former National Security Advisor Michael T. Flynn’s endlessly hyped plea bargain does not signal the beginning of the end for the Trump administration, no matter how ardently the mainstream media and left-wing political hacks want it to be so.

It is merely an inevitable consequence of the perjury traps set by the corrupt Washington swamp-dwelling Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III and sprung by otherwise law-abiding Trump operatives. Mueller was appointed May 17 by Rod J. Rosenstein, in his capacity as acting Attorney General by virtue of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ self-initiated recusal in the Russian electoral interference investigation.

The euphoria on the Left is premature.

The Flynn matter is an inconvenient bump in the road with bad political optics in the short term, not a harbinger of Armageddon. It may even constitute an admission by Mueller that this is all he has against the Trump administration and that he is running out of options as a prosecutor.

For now at least, there is still no evidence President Trump covered up a crime, either before or after taking office, or even that there was an underlying crime to be covered up. But the longer this runaway wrecking ball of an investigation into the Left’s utterly unsubstantiated Russia-Trump electoral collusion conspiracy theory goes on, the greater the likelihood that well-intentioned Trump administration officials will get caught up in its merciless machinery.

There is no underlying crime. There is no indication an underlying crime of any kind whatsoever will ever be discovered. “Collusion” is not a crime, but if it were former President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose family and family foundation were enriched by the Russians, would presumably be guilty of it for letting the Russians run wild. Obama’s infamous hot-mic statement to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev to wait until after the 2012 election for action on missile defense is evidence of a kind of collusion, if not treason, against the United States.

The smoke is clearing from an explosive Mueller investigation weekend of charges, chattering, and tweets. Before the next aftershock, it might be helpful to make three points about where things stand. In ascending order of importance, they are:

1.) There is a great deal of misinformation in the commentariat about how prosecutors build cases.

2.) For all practical purposes, the collusion probe is over. While the “counterintelligence” cover will continue to be exploited so that no jurisdictional limits are placed on Special Counsel Robert Mueller, this is now an obstruction investigation.

3.) That means it is, as it has always been, an impeachment investigation.

Building a Case

Many analysts are under the misimpression that it is typical for federal prosecutors to accept guilty pleas on minor charges in exchange for cooperation that helps build a case on major charges. From this flawed premise, they reason that Mueller is methodically constructing a major case on Trump by accepting minor guilty pleas from Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos for making false statements, and by indicting Paul Manafort and an associate on charges that have nothing to do with Trump or the 2016 election.

That is simply not how it works, strategically or legally.

As I’ve tried to explain a few times now (see here and here), if a prosecutor has an accomplice cooperator who gives the government incriminating information about the major scheme under investigation, he pressures the accomplice to plead guilty to the major scheme, not to an ancillary process crime — and particularly not to false-statements charges.

Strategically, and for public-relations purposes (which are not inconsequential in a high-profile corruption investigation, just ask Ken Starr), a guilty plea to the major scheme under investigation proves that the major scheme really happened — here, some kind of criminal collusion (i.e., conspiracy) in Russia’s espionage operation against the 2016 election. The guilty-plea allocution, in which the accomplice explains to the court what he and others did to carry out the scheme, puts enormous pressure on other accomplices to come forward and cooperate. In a political corruption case, it can drive public officials out of office.