I made my living questioning, interrogating, debriefing, and interviewing people for almost 30 years. A few observations about Strzok interviewing Hillary, Huma, Mills, and Flynn: 1/ https://twitter.com/AndrewCMcCarthy/status/938182241569726464

1. In every case, in every capacity, regardless of the circumstances, there is nothing more vital in a professional interview than the interviewer's relentless and meticulous use of follow-up questions. Without thorough follow-up, nothing else matters.

2. Other than a lack of skill, what kills proper follow-up in an interview? Bias. A pre-conceived notion of what you expect to hear, want you want to hear, or what you demand to hear. A skilled interviewer can manipulate a subject into confirming that bias 9 out of 10 times.

3. Similarly, a skilled interviewer can manipulate a session to conclude in a manner favored by the interviewer, regardless of the facts of the case. How does one accomplish this feat? Lack of follow-up. Allow confusing, incomplete, or deflective responses to stand, as long...

...as they support your pre-determined outcome. If you don't ask the follow-up, neither of you need to worry about how to deal with the answer. I read the FBI 302s summarizing the HRC and Huma interviews. My first and last thought was - these guys don't want to hear the truth.

4. What will a biased or unskilled interviewer say, when challenged on the result of an unprofessional interview? "I asked the question - it's right there in the report." On the surface, a true statement.

5. What they're not telling you is that they wanted to believe the first answer - they hoped for and anticipated that initial response - so they quickly drew a line under it and moved on. This is what I saw in the HRC and Huma 302s. A desire to move on.

6. On the other hand, if my bias is guilt - if I don't want to move on, but to find and exploit an inconsistency - all I have to do is dig in to those things I ignored in the previous scenario. And follow up. I'll win 9 out of 10 of those confrontations as well.

7. The issues with the HRC, Huma, and Mills interviews have been widely reported and discussed - the inconsistencies with prior testimony, or with conflicting evidence found in emails - but the unanswered question on the lips of many who questioned the result was...

"How did this happen? Surely they had their best guys in there - these were incredibly significant interviews. How did they let these inconsistencies get past them?" We now know that one of the interviewers walked into the room with a bias towards innocence.

We now know that the same interviewer literally changed the pre-determined conclusion from guilty to innocent by removing "gross negligence" from Comey's statement. All of this prior to him walking into the room to interview HRC. We now know how this happened.

So what should we do about it? If the "law enforcement officials" who reported the results of Flynn's FBI interview to @CNN are to be believed, Flynn initially denied the Kislyak accusations. After FOLLOW UP, however, he said he didn't remember. At the time, they accepted it.

They didn't "believe he was intentionally misleading them." That's the same phrase used to exonerate Hillary - in fact, it was the deciding factor. In Flynn's case, the FBI changed their mind - they went back and charged him. They can do the same with Hillary, Huma, and Mills.