Yesterday, after I arrived at work, I checked the news on my cell phone and found out that Michael Flynn had pleaded guilty to 1 count of lying to the FBI.

Every Liberal Internet Troll still living in their Mom’s Basement, suddenly switched over to their high-octane fuel (that’s right: Flaming Hot Cheetos) and hit their computer keyboards with a rapturous excitement that they had not felt since Dad agreed that they didn’t have to move out after college.

But what does this mean?

Opinions vary…as FoxNews.com reports…

Former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty Friday to lying to the FBI about contacting Russian officials on behalf of then-President-elect Donald Trump.

The plea by Flynn, the first White House official to be charged in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, electrified Washington and set off intense debate among legal minds about what it portended for the future of the Trump White House.

Andrew McCarthy, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued that Flynn’s admission may not be a significant break in Mueller’s investigation.

“[Flynn], like [former Trump campaign adviser George] Papadopoulos … is being permitted to plead guilty to a mere process crime,” McCarthy wrote on National Review Online. “[F]or for all the furor, we have a small-potatoes plea in Flynn’s case … despite extensive ‘collusion’ evidence.”

McCarthy went on to argue that “[i]t is becoming increasingly palpable that, whatever ‘collusion’ means, there was no actionable, conspiratorial complicity by the Trump campaign in the Kremlin’s machinations.” McCarthy also noted that Mueller’s other significant criminal case, against Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, “has nothing to do with the 2016 election.”

However, Los Angeles defense attorney Ken White, himself a former assistant U.S. attorney, posted on Twitter that he was not as confident as McCarthy in the absence of a wider conspiracy.

“You generally spell out the entire conspiracy in a cooperator’s guilty plea — in many cases,” White wrote. “With more sophisticated cooperators … you play the cards closer to the vest.

“Yes, you’d get a drug mule to spill to the whole conspiracy in the plea to lock them in,” White added. “A Flynn? Maybe not.”

National security lawyer Steve Vladeck echoed White, tweeting that “the story isn’t that Michael Flynn is pleading guilty. It’s what he’s giving Mueller in exchange for such a minor charge …”

“We may not know the answer to that for some time,” Vladeck added, “but I have to think it’s substantial.”

Fox News judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano was less circumspect, characterizing Flynn’s plea as “a nightmare for Donald Trump” and “probably the tip of a prosecutorial iceberg.”

However, Napolitano also told “Shepard Smith Reporting” that if Trump told Flynn to reach out to Russian officials after his election last year, that may not be an impeachable offense, though “they certainly are in the category of offenses that are impeachable.”

“Beyond this, the president of the United States has steadfastly, repeatedly and consistently denied that he had any knowledge of any involvement with the Russians,” Napolitano added. “If Gen. Flynn contradicts that in a credible way under oath, we have a very serious problem on our hands.”

Rush Limbaugh, as he always does, gave a very concise explanation of the situation during his program yesterday…

We are right where we all knew we were going. Back on June 8th, I told everybody there’s not any evidence of collusion. We’re headed towards a process crime, which is exactly what happened today. We’ve all known this day was coming. And because the Drive-Bys have been salivating for this story to amount to something that it never will amount to, what today really means is that we are now looking forward to another six months of intense news stories, allegations of Trump-Russia collusion. But there wasn’t any. Flynn does not know of any, and he’s not going to report any. Now, let’s start at the other end of this. Because that is… I could have teased you. I could have led you along here and taken 20 minutes to get there, but I have never toyed with the people in this audience.

I’ve never dangled carrots out there and tricked you into waiting for what the payoff is. Now, there are some things that you need to keep in mind about this as we begin to unpack this. The first thing to know is that Michael Flynn worked in the Obama administration and was despised personally by Barack Obama. Obama hated Flynn. Flynn was at the Defense Intelligence Agency, and Flynn had a much different view and take on militant Islamic terrorism than Obama, and Flynn was constantly lobbying for foreign policy that would deal with militant Islamic terrorism in the way he thought it presented a threat.

As we know, in Obama’s world there is no militant Islamic terrorism because Islam is a religion of peace. I’m not exaggerating here. I’m not trying to be snarky about Obama. I’m telling you just straight up and down: Obama doesn’t believe in militant Islamic terrorism, as far as every public statement he’s ever made. There was a genuine policy disagreement and a genuine personality clash, and this is why Flynn was being surveilled by the Obama administration during the transition.

Or I should say the Russian ambassador who went to lunch all the time was being surveilled, and it was Michael Flynn during his phone calls that was unmasked by the Obama administration. Flynn worked for Trump for 25 days and was fired for lying. Trump is the one who fired Flynn for lying. Obama never did. During the transition, Obama personally told Trump not to bring Flynn into his administration.

So deep was the animus that Obama had for Flynn that he actually suggested and warned Trump, “Don’t go there. The guy is a bad actor.” (interruption) What? Brian Ross? Okay. Well, let’s go back to the end again if you want more of this. Brian Ross of the ABC News is the only source for this. Breaking news, ABC: Michael Flynn has promised to flip on Trump, to flip on Trump, to flip on Trump’s family, flip to the White House staff.

Brian Ross of ABC News is the only source to report this. Who is Brian Ross? Brian Ross is the investigative reporters for ABC News who — during a mass shooting in Colorado at a movie theater — immediately began looking to see if the shooter could be a member of the Tea Party. So they found membership rosters of Tea Party members, and, lo and behold, they found of a name in the Tea Party roster that was the same name as the shooter.

So Brian Ross, without knowing, heads to the nearest camera and alludes to the possibility the shooter could be a member of the Tea Party. It turned out not to be true. ABC News is reporting that “Flynn is prepared to testify that Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians,” and this is why: “to lay the groundwork for mutual efforts against ISIS in Syria.” That’s the big breaking news from ABC.

Ladies and gentlemen, that is exactly the sort of thing an incoming national security adviser is supposed to do in a transition between administrations. Flynn is supposed “to make contact with the Russians … to lay the groundwork for mutual efforts against ISIS in Syria.” There’s nothing here about undermining current Obama policy, which is what ABC and CNN and the others are trying to make you think is that Flynn was talking to the Russians to try to undermine Obama and his newly placed sanctions on Russian delegates and ambassadors and aides and so forth in the United States.

But the incoming national security adviser making “contact with the Russians … to lay the groundwork for mutual efforts against ISIS in Syria” is exactly what happens during every transition. It is exactly the sort of thing the incoming national security adviser is supposed to do. Now, if this… And this is the key thing about it. If this were part of the basis for a collusion case arising out of Russia’s election meddling, then Flynn would not be pleading guilty to a process crime today.

He would be pleading to an espionage conspiracy. At the end of the day, this remains a process crime. He lied to FBI agents. And if there were collusion, if Flynn were promising to spill the beans on collusion, then he would not just be pleading guilty to a process crime. “But, Rush! But, Rush! He could be… He could have made the deal and that could be what Mueller’s…” No, no, no. Not at this stage. You dangle that carrot down the road.

So, the reality of the situation is that there still is no proven collusion between President Trump and the Russians.

What appears to have happened, as Rush said, are activities that would have been considered S.O.P. in any other incoming Administration.

What has changed is the advent of the bizarre out-of-control National Temper Tantrum by Modern American Liberals which has been raging since the votes were counted on the night of November 8, 2016.

As I have written before, the frenzy which those who are still grieving Hillary’s loss has consumed their very souls in such a manner that they have metamorphosed into a group resembling an old West Lynch Mob.

And that mob stretches from UC Berkeley to Capitol Hill.

They want a hanging, and by gum, there WILL be a “hanging”, even is it has to be Donald Trump, Jr., in order to teach the President a “lesson” as to who is REALLY in charge of this country.

Their problem is, as Rush said, all they have right now is a Process Crime.

The other problem with any testimony that Flynn might give is the fact that he lost his job at the White House for LYING.

So, that tarnishes the veracity of anything he might say.

In other words, this may turn out to be a great big “nothingburger”.

As the Witch Hunt continues…

Until He Comes,

KJ