David French of NRO appears justified in taking to task those who thought Judge Emmet G. Sullivan this week was poised to issue a smackdown to prosecutors in the Russia-related investigations.

I was one of those who so thought, and so wrote.

Thus, in one of only two times I’ve criticized the prosecutors of the Russiapalooza, amidst my many more numerous defenses of the investigation, I turn out, at least in the short term, to have foreseen things incorrectly.

I had written that when FBI agents dissuaded former national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn from bringing an attorney to what sounded like a less-than-fully-formal meeting about Russia-related matters, and then deliberately refrained from telling him that any lies under such circumstances were illegal and prosecutable, they effectively “entrapped” him in commonsense understandings of the term. I made clear that the “legal” definition of “entrapment” might not have been met, but I said the FBI's behavior was unethical regardless. And, of course, I thought Sullivan would excoriate prosecutors for it.

As has been well-reported, Sullivan did no such thing. Instead, he berated Flynn for the substance and nature of his offenses. Apparently understanding the way the wind was blowing, Flynn and his lawyers told Sullivan, even before the judge erupted, that the general had indeed known that a lie during the meeting in question would be a criminal violation and said he did not think he had been illegally entrapped.

“Yesterday was supposed to be the moment of the special counsel’s reckoning, not Flynn’s,” wrote French, describing the expectations I and others had published. Instead, the judge forcefully “held Flynn’s team to account.”

What to make of all this? First: Of course Flynn was guilty. All but the Trumpiest of Trumpworld knew that. Second: His guilt was probably far more extensive than the mere perjury charge to which he pleaded. Some of the evidence of that more extensive guilt did not become apparent until the indictments last week of two people who worked with Flynn on matters related to Turkey — and some of us, me included, missed that entirely. Third: Special counsel Robert Mueller darn well knows what he’s doing. He’s not a rogue or unethical prosecutor, but a hard-nosed, by-the-book public servant.

To be clear, I myself never blamed Mueller, but only the FBI team that interviewed Flynn before Mueller even entered the picture.

This also all means that the danger to Team Trump continues to grow. Flynn already has been very cooperative to Mueller’s team, and now his sentencing has been delayed so he can be induced to cooperate still further.

As French wrote, “Yesterday’s events should serve as a wake-up call for Trump’s base.”

Me? I still think former FBI honcho Andrew McCabe acted quite unethically. I still would not be surprised to hear Sullivan say as much at some point. But the bad ethics apparently did not come as close to the line of illegality as I had thought — and Flynn’s culpability was worse.

I should have heeded my own long-standing advice on the whole Russia probe: Until we see Mueller’s full case, we should all just “shut up” while “letting Mueller do his job, rather than shouting ignorant declarations from any rooftop onto which some ill-informed pundit can climb.”

Mea culpa.

The question is, who else will Mueller find is culpable, and for what?