Agreed. All inference from the size of Mueller's army and their expertise, I don't see Mueller's army as specializing in election law, and election law would be where election crimes are committed, e.g., "collusion with the Russians" whatever the heck that means. The expertise of Mueller's army is heavy on white collar crime.
I have not seen reports of response to subpoena or similar, other than Deutsche Bank expects subpoenas over Trump-Russia investigation. I don't see that as having any relation to the campaign. None at all.
On Scaramucci's remark, I went looking for the root of the story. This is as close as I got so far.
When asked if it's clear that Trump wants Sessions out of the White House, he told Hewitt "you're probably right," ultimately confirming the tension between the two is not getting any better."I have an enormous amount of respect for the Attorney General, but I do know the president pretty well," Scaramucci said, "and if there's this level of tension in the relationship that, that's public, you're probably right."
Although he added he didn't want to speak for the President on this, his next question to Hewitt was telling: "Are you available to be the Attorney General?"
I guess that's not a leak. He can't very well undercut the gist of Trump's tweets, no matter what. The tweets speak for themselves, etc. is the only stand WH spox ought to be taking.
That would likely be legitimate grounds for Sessions (not Rosenstein) to re-insert himself into the special counsel's activities.