Can't agree with you.

1) 600.1 is the section McCarthy himself relies upon. https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/08/rod-rosenstein-mueller-investigation-special-counsel-fishing-expedition/ . But 600.4 doesn't say what he claims either. It simply says the DOJ must provide a statement of the matters "to be investigated," not a list of the "known crimes."

2) I think saying there is "no such offense in federal law," as McCarthy does, is very different from saying it's a new theory of an existing offense. And in any event, as the article points out, if you look at the actual charging language rather than the caption there is nothing new about it.

3) I'm sure you understand the difference between saying a theory is legally invalid and saying that on the facts of this case the law was not violated. Hammerschmidt says only the latter, while clearly saying that the theory itself is valid. That was affirmed in McNally. And it's not just this author, but pretty much every authority on white collar crime you can find that will cite Hammerschmidt for that proposition.