The Wall Street Journal reported another leak concerning Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s pseudo-investigation of all things related to supposed collusion by President Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russia [emphasis added].

A meeting in the Seychelles weeks before Donald Trump’s inauguration between a Russian executive and a top Republican donor close to the Trump transition team has drawn the scrutiny of special counsel Robert Mueller, who has heard testimony that appears to conflict with an account of the same meeting given earlier to House investigators, according to people familiar with the matter.

Specifically,

Mr Mueller’s investigators have heard testimony from a witness that the donor, Erik Prince, wasn’t introduced to the Russian by intermediaries from the United Arab Emirates, as he had told the House panel….

And

Mr [George] Nader told Mr Mueller’s investigators that he attended Mr Prince’s meeting with the Emirati delegation and that the Emiratis didn’t make the introduction between Mr Prince and Mr Dmitriev….

How—and why—are these leaks being made?  Can we even believe them, given the leaker’s dishonesty made manifest by the fact of his leaks?

…a spokesman for the special counsel declined to comment.

Not even to decry the leak.  But, then, of course not.  He’ll let the leak stand unaddressed.

“People familiar with the matter” include Mueller and his team.  Certainly, “people familiar” include folks other than Mueller or his team, but Mueller’s continued studied refusal to decry not only this leak but all of them is strongly indicative.

Mueller seems to be getting desperate to show something—anything—that would justify his having spent the millions of dollars he’s spent on his…investigation.