emptywheel

1) I think you're exactly right about the January 5th meeting being about Flynn and likely nothing to do with Steele, however I think you're ascribing completely benign motivations behind the Flynn operation.

2) Unless Yates/comey were pursuing a very strained interpretation of the antiquated Logan Act, there's really no reason for them to have gone after Flynn in the first place.

They weren't, yet, "going after Flynn." They were trying to understand the motivations of an adversary that had just carried out an attack on us. You think that's abusive?

By questioning the incoming NSA about conversations they knew through the surveillance weren't illegal or relevant to the Russian attack? Possibly abusive, considering Flynn and McCabe's animosity.

They didn't know they weren't illegal. As I've pointed out if they were payoff for a quid pro quo, they were the absolutely illegal. You don't want FBI to investigate if people are spying for Russia?

Not if it's based on Clinton paid for opposition research from a foreign ex spy. (again, what's the basis to investigate a quid pro quo deal, other than the Steele dossier? Mere speculation doesn't cut it)

You want us to stop chasing spies if our suspicion about it comes from intelligence our closest foreign partners give us? Take a step back and think about what you're really saying.