But considering the information that’s become available in the past year, we would be remiss if we didn’t at least consider other possible scenarios. Here’s one of them, posited amidst the context of news that has come to light. It has to do with a special counsel probe with the appearance of several important conflicts of interest.

ADVERTISEMENT

There are many excellent agents within our intelligence agencies who deserve great credit and respect. But we also know that some bad actors within those agencies have a daunting record of problems that include lying about evidence; conducting politically-motivated acts ; botched terrorism investigations; improper surveillance of private citizens, members of Congress and journalists; providing incorrect information to Congress ; and illegally withholding evidence

Mueller isn’t exactly an unconflicted player in this scenario. He was FBI director from 2001-2013 when many alleged abuses occurred and — theoretically — would have a vested interest in protecting his former colleagues and his own legacy by preventing a Trump administration from poking around into alleged intelligence agency misdeeds.

Further complicating Mueller’s perceived status as a neutral investigator (under this scenario) is the fact that he named at least two conflicted players to his Trump-Russia investigative team: lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. According to reports, the FBI couple was only removed from Mueller’s team after the Office of Inspector General discovered their text messages apparently calling into question their ability to be impartial.

Under normal circumstances, if members of a prosecutor’s team get booted for ethics reasons or conflicts of interest, that tends to call into question the entire investigative product to date. In those instances, defendants are typically afforded the chance to challenge the impartiality of the prosecution and argue that the case has been tainted.

But with the Mueller team, the investigation didn’t start over. There was no public discussion about examining and possibly segregating parts of the case that Strzok and Page had touched. No neutral party was invited to arbitrate from an impartiality standpoint.

A conflict of interest — whether perceived or real — is usually treated very seriously under the law. In fact, that’s the whole reason Mueller was appointed; because it was determined that the normal systems were fraught with conflicts of interest.

None of this is to say that Mueller can’t rise above what some would say are perceived conflicts of interest inherent in his own investigation. He may, indeed, be an extraordinary man who can set aside his personal interests, experiences, and relationships with intimately involved colleagues past and present to conduct an impartial and fair probe of a president who some in the intelligence community — it seems — are working hard to undermine.