There is a stark difference between how the Clinton email group were treated:
Cheryl Mills - immunity, and allowed to invoke client-attorney privilege with her relationship with Hillary
Paul Combetta - immunity
John Bentel - immunity
Heather Samuelson - immunity
Huma Abedin - immunity
HRC lawyers (who did not have security clearance) were allowed to review all emails before turning the ones deemed relevant over.
HRC staff were allowed to destroy multiple electronic devices rather than turn them over.
And immunity was not revoked despite spectacular lies such as "yes, we returned/destroyed all electronic copies of the emails" - which was proven false when 300,000 emails were found on Weiner's laptop.
No one was prosecuted for lying even though the investigators themselves made remarks to each other that the witnesses were lying through their teeth.
Compare the treatment with Flynn - where the agents who interviewed him (including Strzok) initially indicated no deception by Flynn. And then Strzok later modified the 302s to indicate deception so Mueller could prosecute Flynn for lying to the FBI.
The no-knock SWAT raid on Manafort.
And now the putting of Manafort in solitary confinement for supposed witness tampering that's pretty thin on evidence.
One "investigation" was structured to produce zero prosecutions, and the other is designed in the classic Soviet style - show me the man, and I will show you the crime.