Details: Mueller Filing Highlights Lengthy Deliberative Process Between FBI Investigators and Andrew McCabe on Flynn Report…

Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack filed a cover letter attempting to explain the reason for the Flynn interview on January 24th, and the official filing of the interview notes (FD-302) on February 15th, and then again on May 31st.  To explain the delay, he claims the report “inadvertently” had a header saying “DRAFT DOCUMENT/DELIBERATIVE MATERIAL”  (screen grab)

What the special counsel appears to be obfuscating to the court is that there was factually a process of deliberation within the investigative unit, headed by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, surrounding the specific wording of the 302 report on the interview.

Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack is attempting to hide the length of the small group deliberations. It seems he doesn’t want the court to know Andrew McCabe was involved in shaping how the fd-302 was written.

We know there was a deliberative process in place, seemingly all about how to best position the narrative, because we can see the deliberations in text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok:  See below (note the dates):

The text message conversation above is February 14th, 2017.   The Michael Flynn FD-302 was officially entered into the record on February 15th, 2017, per the report:

Obviously the interview took place on January 24th, 2017.  The FD-302 was drafted on January 24th, and then later edited, shaped, and ultimately approved by McCabe, on February 14th, then entered into the official record on February 15th.

It was a deliberative document from the outset.  Thanks to the Strzok/Page text messages we know the cover letter from the Special Counsel is misleading.

The Feb 15th, 2017, date was the day after McCabe approved it.

May 17th, 2017, Robert Mueller was assigned as special Counsel. Then, the FD-302 report was then re-entered on May 31st, 2017, removing the header; paving the way for Mueller’s team to use the content therein.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, FBI, IG Report FISA Abuse, Notorious Liars, Spygate, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

334 Responses to Details: Mueller Filing Highlights Lengthy Deliberative Process Between FBI Investigators and Andrew McCabe on Flynn Report…

  1. CNY3 says:

    Excuse my NY French, but do those corrupt fkers ever stop lying??? EVER????!!!

    Liked by 16 people

  2. Dutchman says:

    So, just last week, we have a filing in the Wolf case, that has,a small paragraph “INADVERTANTLY” left in, that lets the cat outa the bag.

    And NOW, we see an “INADVERTANT” leaving on of a “Draft Document Deliberative” header, exposing once again, the truth.

    “Once is happenstance,…

    Twice?,…coincidence,…

    THIRD TIME? ,….Enemy Action!

    Liked by 9 people

  3. Sprawlie says:

    05/10/2017: “We need to lock in Flynn. In a formal chargeable way. Soon.”
    “I agree. I’ve been pushing and I’ll reemphasize with Bill.”

    Liked by 11 people

  4. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the 302 procedure is intended to insure that written summaries of interviews performed by FBI agents can come into the court as evidence. The 302 is a “business record” and thus is an exception to the hearsay rule. Otherwise, the agents themselves would have to testify at court to the substance of interviews.

    The 302 requirement that it be prepared and filed in five days insures that there are regular procedures governing the 302-type document indicating that they are created in the ordinary course of business and thus are “accurate” and “suitable to be relied upon”.

    Further, what do the 302s seek to memorialize? Factual information. What questions the interviewers asked, and what answers the interviewee gave – and ancillary information visible to the interviewer, e.g., demeanor. The 302 in its essence is not a memorandum of law, but like a factual affidavit.

    Since it is a factual document seeking to record questions, answers and demeanor so that information can be presented to the Court as evidence, it really isn’t a “deliberative document” requiring thought and INPUT FROM THIRD PARTIES LIKE MCCABE WHO WASN’T THERE. Any guidance from McCabe strikes me as tainting the 302, because it is no longer just the mere recollection of factual material prepared by an assumedly unbiased FBI agent, but a synthesis of factual information AND tailoring by third parties NOT IN ATTENDANCE so that, for example, it would be most useful to the third parties. Throw in the fact that the third party had bias against General Flynn (first we f*** Flynn, then we f*** Trump) I would say that the document cannot be relied upon AT ALL because we don’t how much of it reflects the factual recollections of the agents, and the editing of a biased third party not in attendance. I would say if McCabe did participate in the deliberations the 302s CANNOT BE RELIED UPON IN ANY WAY NOT EXCULPATORY TO FLYNN and the agents themselves have to testify in person as to the substance of the conversations. In essence, McCabe intervening in the drafting of the 302 constituted “witness tampering”,

    The 302 as edited with McCabe’s input is no longer a “business record” of the type that is viewed as an exception to the hearsay rule and thus shouldn’t be considered by the Court. Rather, the Court should seek the testimony of the agents themselves.

    Liked by 31 people

    • joeknuckles says:

      Excellent breakdown.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Publius2016 says:

        yes! excellent point about 302s…once again, they want it both ways as a “factual document” and “redacted work product”…

        Liked by 5 people

      • Mike says:

        The 302 is the same as a police report.

        It is NOT evidence in trial. It is given to the defense to prepare for trial, as part of discovery. And given to the prosecution to prepare the criminal complaint, and the prosecution case. In a trial, the cop, or FBI agent HAS to testify. They may ask to see their report to refresh their memory, while testifying.

        If a police report contains hearsay, the hearsay is NOT allowed in, at trial, unless it is allowable by a hearsay exception, like a dying declaration.

        Liked by 6 people

        • Thanks for the input. The legally untutored (or forgetful as is apparently my case) may consider the 302 as “proof” of a crime, whereas according to your description it actually functions in part as an internal check or milestone to ensure that there is, in fact, a potential crime to be prosecuted. That does not moot my point about McCabe’s participation. For the prosecution to go forward and not be considered a “witch hunt” the 302 has to document facts that prima facie may constitute a crime. If the 302 itself doesn’t memorialize potentially criminal conduct, why did the prosecution, and allocation of resources to the prosecution continue? Another point. If the 302 establishes what the agent will testify to since it will be used to refresh the agent’s recollection at trial, it is important that it be damming and that the defense see it that way. All the more reason for Terry McAulliffe’s butt boy McCabe to participate in its preparation!

          Liked by 4 people

          • Mike says:

            IF a police report or 302, establishes probable cause a crime has been committed, the prosecution uses it to draft a criminal complaint, and the suspect is charged with a crime.

            I read the IG report on McCabe. It reads like a criminal complaint, providing probable cause to believe McCabe committed 4 felonies, leaking, lying to the FBI, including under oath. I was a police det. My experience, any case that relied on the word/reports of a cop who was fired for lying would be dropped, unless there was compelling evidence from other sources. Still, if a dirty cop, dirtied up a real case, they usually drop it because the dirty cop destroyed the gov’s cred.

            I read the Flynn 302s. Their brevity, and lack of description of exact question asked, and exact answer given, to me look sloppy at best. Flynn says he’s not sure, or doesn’t remember. Quite the contrast from the bald face lies of the Clinton witnesses, from the 302s I read.

            My opinion, McCabe should have been indicted 6 months ago. ANY criminal investigation predicated on 302s, authored by Strzok or McCabe should be dismissed, fruit of a poisonous tree. If FBI Joe Pientka, who I read was a hero in some gunfight, is not a crook, JOE IF YOUR OUT THERE, WTF? Why has RR reportedly prevented him from testifying to congress.

            IF there are any honest FBI, it is WAY past time for them to step up and tell the truth.

            Liked by 11 people

            • Has McCabe been indicated, or is that information being held back until AFTER Flynn’s sentencing?

              Liked by 1 person

                • Mike says:

                  It has been reported a grand jury has been impanelled on McCabe. He has NOT been indicted. I would like to believe the reason they have not indicted him yet, is because they are looking at more serious charges (like treason), or he is cooperating. If he was cooperating he would not be making the legal arguments/public statements he has made.

                  If they were looking at more serious charges, it would make more sense to me if they had already indicted him for the lying, etc. They would have that to pressure him with, and they could always add superseding indictments for other crimes.

                  My guess is the “justice” department is too corrupt, or full of cowards to do their duty.
                  Makes me want to puke.

                  Liked by 3 people

            • “Joe, if you’re out there, WTF?”

              Some of us have wanted to ask the same question of former NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers.

              Liked by 1 person

        • Doppler says:

          As I recall, there are two exceptions to the hearsay rule relevant here, in addition to business records: past recollection recorded and present recollection refreshed. The first, like the business records rule allows someone to say, I don’t remember this specifically now, but I always wrote these things down at the time, on this form, and always recorded it as I saw it then, while the second, says, while I’d forgotten the details, now that I’ve reviewed my contemporary hires, I now remember it. In either case the document is admissible n connection with the testimony of the author or custodian.

          Liked by 3 people

    • recoverydotgod says:

      Your explanation is helpful. Thanks!

      Liked by 1 person

    • pnj01 says:

      It’s been a long time since I tried a criminal case but an FD302 didn’t used to be admissible on its own as a business record. It memorializes an investigator’s recollection of a discussion with a witness. What a witness says is inherently hearsay if the witness is available but not on the stand. A witness statement may be admissible is the witness is unavailable and there are sufficient assurances of reliability (normally would have to be under oath–which FD302 statements aren’t–with the defendant having had an opportunity to cross-examine, again not present here). Prior unsworn statements of witnesses are normally not admissible even when recorded. Normally a prior inconsistent statement can be used only to impeach a witness but not as affirmative evidence entered into the trial record. There are other peculiar rules for specific prior statements that fit into narrow patterns (e.g., prior consistent statements “ante litem motam” might be admissible under certain circumstances for certain purposes, etc.). Now most of my criminal trial work antedated the Fed Rules of Evidence but I do not think they changed things too much (I doubt, though, they would ever use a term like ante litem motam, as Richardson on Evidence did).

      Liked by 8 people

      • Publius2016 says:

        lying to “Federal Agent” is tough to defend against especially if its in the “302”

        Liked by 2 people

      • I only have my recollection too. I hope someone would provide more current information but your description fits an MO – Mueller will avoid a trial on close or losing issues and instead muscle the accused to plead guilty. That gives the legally untutored the false impression that claims of the prosecutors (and political operatives) have been tested in an adversarial process and proven in some way, when they haven’t been tested at all! When the political controversy is about Russian collusion, maybe all the special counsel wants as an outcome is to get Flynn to plead guilty to some activity involving Russians so the media can conflate the Russian hoax narrative with the guilty plea as if that proves something.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Dr.Jay says:

        Yet in this case there are no statements by Flynn recorded, just a story told giving apparently the impression of the 2nd agent (suspect P.S.), who seems to have rewritten the original (and filed) 302 written by the 1st agent (Pientka).

        Even the first lines indicate that this is a rewrite:
        “#2: After being advised of the identies of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview, FLYNN provided the following information:”
        Clearly unclear, as is odd for such documents, as it does not state what they informed Flynn off.

        Also unclear in the remainder of the document is what questions they asked as well as what exact answers Flynn gave, it just gives the impression of what the FBI agents had at the time. And if that really was around or near Feb 14/15 than that is 2 weeks too late, which makes it rather likely that this was certainly not the first draft.

        And even with this information written in this way, there clearly does not seem to be a case of lying to the FBI. Flynn avoids to gives some questions at times, or says he does not remember or nuances what he may have said. But no evidence for lying to the FBI.

        Liked by 2 people

    • mireilleg says:

      Thank you for this. It’s too easy for those of us not in the lingo to get lost in all those details. You helped me understand the 302. Now my question would be, would those FBI interviewers be credible in court since they were willing to let the 302 be deliberated and modified. I know they would be under oath, but this does not seem to mean much to Comey, Mueller and others.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Sugarhillhardrock says:

      Very solid on the regularly conducted activity exception to the Hearsay rule, CC.

      Like

    • zorrorides says:

      C Citizen, this explanation should be required of any person attempting to explain what happened with Gen Flynn and FIB agents. First, and every time, your teaching moment must be the beginning statement. TY

      Liked by 1 person

    • magagal says:

      How do we even know this was the first 302? Pientka took notes and allegedly wrote the original draft. According to FBI guidelines it needs to be filed within five days after the interview. This one looks to be written by Strzok and it was drafted THREE weeks after the interview and after getting approved by McCabe, per the emails. Judge Ellis needs to insist Pientka testify in open court before sentencing.

      Liked by 2 people

    • teeheeman says:

      #IStandWithFlynn PLEASE TWEET AND RETWEET AWAY. This “Flynn Frame” is a travesty. It would be a BIGLY win if Judge Sullivan throws out the charges against Flynn. SHOUT FROM THE ROOFTOPS PEOPLE!!!!

      Liked by 1 person

    • JustinMurican says:

      If the FBI would just record their interviews, like every other state and local police department in the country, the issue of 302s would be a thing of the past. The FBI has a policy of not recording their interviews! The ONLY reason they continue on with this policy is to get away with making $n!t up in the 302s. This allows them to exonerate the obviously guilty (Hillary) and frame the innocent (Flynn / Trump / Papadopolous, et al). This policy is insane and changing it to a “mandatory recording policy” would be one of the quickest and easiest fixes in dealing with FBI corruption – especially after being exposed as one of the most corrupt LE organizations in the world.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Variable312 says:

        They claim that they don’t record any interviews because they are required by law to prepare a written transcript of any video or audio recording they make to the US Attorney. If this really a rule they have to follow its really stupid.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Walt says:

          What’s the problem with preparing a transcript? Even in the bad old days when it was a manual process with a word processor and a tape machine it took only two or three hours per hour of tape. Today there are audo-to-text computer programs that produce a perfectly readable and nearly 100% correct output as fast as your printer will go. It needs checking by someone skilled in the art being discussed and a signature, with the original tape remaining as part of the evidence.

          This is a stupid issue. The FBI doesn’t want to do tapes because it can’t fudge them.

          Like

    • TWOHAWK 1 says:

      So- Can you explain why this missive from you is an exact duplicate, with a couple of changes, from another user name, at a different site?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Your point is? I have a little understanding of these matters, and I put my understanding out there so that if it needed to be refined, others would oblige me. Now I have a much better understanding of how a 302 is used, but my suspicions about McCabe’s participation have been confirmed by those more knowledgeable with criminal justice proceedings and their limitations. That’s why I started my comments in both places “Correct me if I’m wrong . . .”.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Deplorable_Infidel says:

        “from another user name, at a different site?”

        Are we only allowed to post our opinions and facts on one website? If so, which one should that be?

        Liked by 1 person

    • Donzo says:

      “The court should seek the testimony of the agents… ”
      Surely you gest.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Grassleysgirl/Breitbartista says:

      Excellent objective analysis indeed.
      I have a question for all regarding the 302s. I believe I read or heard from a reliable source that agents of the FBI do not record interviews of witnesses,suspects or targets.
      Is this a fact? If so , how on God’s green earth is this acceptable? We hear about “Rule of Law”, proper procedure, predicates,manuals and handbooks constantly. Yet we’re expected to accept w/o question that humans can interview, grill or interrogate others for hours , wrap up and take up to 5 days to memorialize the interview completely and factually from memory and those handsized notebooks? Really.??👀

      Liked by 1 person

    • Bitter Clinger says:

      No different from a medical record which is also a legal document.

      Like

    • 1stgoblyn says:

      There is no reason on earth, in this day and age of advanced technology, that ANY interview between any employee of We, the People, (FBI, DOJ, IRS, etc.) and any other person is not done on video recording equipment! PERIOD!

      Like

    • Roger H. says:

      Thank you for clarifying this. The article was not clear, at least to me, the practical and legal significance of the “Draft Document/Deliberative Material” header. One thing I have found missing from all discussion of this matter is McCabe’s statement on the day of the Flynn interview that having the two agents return believing Flynn had not lied was a check of a way “to start a false statements investigation.” How did he know at that point that he was involved in a “false statements investigation?” Obviously, the object was to ensnare Gen. Flynn in an alleged false statement case from the get-go. It was pre-ordained. Deliberately created out of whole cloth. They were going to come up with a false statement by hook or by crook.

      Like

    • Linda K. says:

      I wonder if the Grand Jury has asked McCabe about this 302.

      Like

    • Just Beachy says:

      Something struck me yesterday listening to arrogant Comey after the hearing: He said he ordered McCabe to send the two agents to interview Flynn. I realize that the buck stops with Comey, but I have been under the impression that McCabe handled it this way and filled Comey in after the fact.
      With Comey taking responsibility, are they trying to distance McCabe from the entire Flynn set up?

      Like

  5. AccountabilityPlease says:

    It is completely inappropriate for political appointees, like James Comey or Andrew McCabe, to play ANY role in the investigative process. That said, notice how Comey transforms from an OCD micromanager to a clueless idiot when the mood strikes him. I don’t know what happened in today’s hearing, but he looked completely rattled afterwards. Can’t wait to read the transcript.

    Liked by 11 people

  6. Mark says:

    The “trial” is over…flynn pleaded guilty. This is the sentencing phase, prosecutor recommends low end of range, indicating no jail time. There has already been discovery, Flynn had multiple high priced lawyers, they already would have all these 302 and notes themselves I’m sure. Did I misread, or did the judge ask Flynn’s legal team for the 302 and Muellers team for all versions of the same 302. Were his lawyers not allowed access to all the 302 and notes?

    Like

    • Matt Hay says:

      I do not believe they were allowed to see the original 302 because it was filed under seal, to intentionally prevent their access. They even kept everyone except the Go8 from seeing as DOJ refused to turnover.

      Liked by 3 people

      • jbowen82 says:

        As I noted earlier, Mark is right. No party involved here has any incentive to get to the bottom of it. Flynn is going to walk with a slap on the wrist, but if he reopened it, then Turkey would be back on the table, so he’ll sa it’s accurate. Pientka isn’t going to buck his FBI superiors and the agency. Bad things happen to people who do that (ask Robin Gritz), so if he were to testify, he would say it’s accurate. It could say Flynn dyed his hair blue and spoke French for the interview, and everyone would go along with it. It’s over.

        Liked by 3 people

    • Dr.Jay says:

      We still haven’t seen the original 302 by Pientke. The one dated 2017-02-15 was last updated by Peter S.

      Like

  7. emeraldcoaster says:

    IIRC, Judge Sullivan ordered a criminal contempt investigation of the Ted Stevens prosecution team. Although unlikely, it would be manna from heaven if Judge Sullivan ordered the same for the Flynn prosecution.

    Liked by 6 people

  8. Streak 264 says:

    Maybe this is why Mueller kept postponing the sentencing. He knew this would get out and needed time to fix it as much as possible.

    Liked by 4 people

  9. Genie says:

    I’m disappointed. Strzok’s 302s are not “profoundly sophisticated.”

    Liked by 3 people

  10. limelite001 says:

    So, the way this works is that the FBI can lie, obfuscate, alter testimony, hide agents, lie some more – and get away with it. But, just YOU try and do that to the FBI – if you’re a political enemy – and your life gets ruined. How is this justice? How is this allowed? How has the USA ABC governmental agencies been allowed to become a law unto themselves???? Who is watching the watcher?

    Liked by 3 people

  11. Payday says:

    If a 302 is a recollection of events, why would there ever be a draft report? In case someone misremembered their recollection? Right. Hope the judge asks that question.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Publius2016 says:

      they can’t use anything before Vault 7 exposure! Remember, the insuarance Plan? it was the planting of evidence on Trump Campaign…Deep State is trying to use the stuff they surveilled before the Election but only with documents after the release…Look at FISA…nothing ever released before Vault 7 (February 2017)

      Liked by 1 person

      • Payday says:

        Ok. But that doesn’t answer my question. How would the word draft ever end up on any 302?

        Liked by 2 people

        • Publius2016 says:

          because its not the original 302…these were drafted after the fact…one problem for Deep State is that each “draft” conflicts with testimony on file like Comey and McCabe…

          Liked by 1 person

          • Bulldog84 says:

            They were either drafted well after the fact, or, as in the case of Comey’s conclusions regarding the HRC email investigation, well BEFORE the fact.

            Like

      • Proud American from Texas says:

        Not trying to be questioning but you have mentioned Vault 7 many times in this one thread. I’m not sure of others, but I don’t understand your point. Can you explain what you are trying to communicate to everyone? Thanks.

        Like

        • Publius2016 says:

          Vault 7 exposed how the Intelligence agencies plant evidence on suspects using digital “fingerprints”. Wikileaks released this covert tool to the world in February 2017. Deep State planted evidence on Trump Campaign but they cant use it because the “fingerprints” will point to Deep State!! Vault 7 was named after the 7th Floor (Deep State).

          Liked by 1 person

  12. joeknuckles says:

    “Your honor, this is the man that conducted the interview with General Flynn. I rest my case.”

    Liked by 1 person

  13. louloulaw2017 says:

    As Prof. Dershowtiz said, whatever Flynn was alleged to lie about his contact with Kislyak was not material to the case of Russian collusion. Enough said. Does Flynn has reputable counsel? Did they put the text messages in evidence? Did they receive the text messages which are exculpatory evidence?

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Another thing I find to be incredible is that we have this super high tech agency, the FBI, that still records interviews like they did 100 years ago. Why the hell don’t they use video? I’m sure all of them have State of the art phones they could use.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Blind no longer says:

      So they can keep lying and changing the outcome Seneca. I hope President Trump can change this immediately!

      Liked by 8 people

    • mark says:

      Every police department in the US uses video recording while suspects are being questioned yet the FBI writes out inyerviews as you mentioned. How covenient for altering and changing what the person interviwed actually said. Video and audio recording don’t allow that.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. Liam Song says:

    Excellent comments. Thank you all.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Lucille says:

    Letter to Judge Sullivan in Support of General Michael T. Flynn

    Original letter sent to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan by former Special Supervisory Agent Robyn Gritz, who worked closely with General Flynn in counter-terrorism operations as more fully described in the letter, as well as an inside view into the character and tactics used by those in charge of his investigation, by someone who has come to know them well.

    https://quodverum.com/2018/12/352/letter-to-judge-sullivan-in-support-of-general-michael-t-flynn.html

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Blind no longer says:

    That was it????? OMG! I read the whole thing…Mueller you corrupt asshole…you gotta be kidding!!! Where’s the crime here? The fix was in to get Flynn..He knew where all Obama’s bodies were buried, as well as some others. They had to take him out. Flynn was the biggest threat to their corruption being exposed, so he had to eliminated.
    Since our court’s won’t provide justice to Mulehead and team, I pray the good Lord will!!!

    Liked by 6 people

    • guest4ever says:

      I’m sure HE will.

      Liked by 1 person

    • jbowen82 says:

      As Andy McCarthy frequently points out, this was a counterintelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation. There was never a crime. That’s why all these people are pleading to process crimes (and Manafort to 10-year old shady dealings).

      The “small group” were convinced that PDT was a Russian stooge, and that they were going to prove it. This was all about getting Flynn to flip and testify to all the Russians who were pulling the strings. “First we f*** Flynn, then we f*** Trump,” as Andy McCabe is reported to have said. Indeed. How’s that going, Mr. McCabe?

      Liked by 2 people

  18. Interested Bystander says:

    I note that the quality of the print changes noticeably on the fourth page of the 302. The first three pages look like scans of scans, with blurred text, whereas on the final two pages, including the discussion about the meeting on the 29th the text unblurred and clean. Perhaps it was these two pages that required three weeks of deliberations to finalize? Just sayin’…

    Liked by 1 person

    • ILOT says:

      I’m beginning to wonder if the visit on the 24th wasn’t just that; a visit. More accurately termed a fishing expedition. Once they developed the go-forward strategy for going after Flynn they realized they had to memorialize it in a 302 doc as –
      an afterthought….Kind of an “oh $hit” moment. Either way, it’s all sounding keystone coppish…

      Like

  19. Zorro says:

    So really no visible signs of a fight from the Flynn team up to this point. There’s other stuff going on, Turkey, which precludes any fight and leads to a plea deal. So Flynn gets sentenced according to the plea agreement in a no drama proceeding. The Demosocialists go wild. They are still gloating over the FB troll indictments. So Flynn is portrayed as a criminal, not only talking to Russians, but to Turks, and POTUS is associated with all of it by MSM.

    Like

  20. recoverydotgod says:

    Constructing Truth: the FBI’s (non)recording policy
    Harvey Silverglate
    Jul 27, 2011

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/harveysilverglate/2011/07/27/constructing-truth-the-fbis-nonrecording-policy/#df311622e8a7

    -snip-

    This little known but quite ubiquitous system is one of the reasons that Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz coined his oft-quoted aphorism that federal prosecutors and FBI agents teach witnesses “not only how to sing, but how to compose.” We are all familiar with witnesses’ being offered favors – such as leniency – in exchange for prosecution-friendly testimony. But the system that relies upon the non-recording policy and the 302 reports elicits prosecution-favorable testimony not by promised favors, but rather by very effective threats. And such government-scripted testimony extracted from a witness by this subtle device is not subject to the common attack made by lawyers against testimony given due to promises of leniency or other rewards. The pressure on the witness is subtle, and the method for extraction of the testimony almost always escapes the jury’s knowledge.

    Thus, the 302 reports are not there just to help the FBI report on interrogations; they are key tools for later manipulating witness testimony in a courtroom.

    -snip-

    Liked by 1 person

  21. teeheeman says:

    #IStandWithFlynn PLEASE TWEET AND RETWEET AWAY. This “Flynn Frame” is a travesty. It would be a BIGLY win if Judge Sullivan throws out the charges against Flynn. SHOUT FROM THE ROOFTOPS PEOPLE!!!

    Like

  22. Bascum says:

    A lot of good info on here from many concerned patriots. I feel the despair in some of the comments also. What are we to do about this corrupt Deep State Machine? I think we can take a lesson from this corrupt aristocracy in that they take care of their people. They support them (McCabe/ Strzok/Blakey-Ford etc) with lawyers/ gofundme/ favorable press.( Blakey-Ford) raised $210,000 in 2 days in one account. That was $32.00 a person average. And make no mistake , that was a Deep State operation
    I think if We The People had supported patriots like Flynn sooner with a gofundme ( or alternative) he might not have plead guilty. If 1/10th of trump supporters had sent $1 each he would have had 6 million for his defense.
    If good people in the FBI/ DOJ ( Joe Pientka possibly?) felt that We were watching,standing with them, ready to take action to support them, maybe they would be emboldened to come forward more readily. How long could any of us withstand the onslaught the DS for any length of time. Alone.
    This forum would be a great avenue for this because of the longevity of the members and the trust I think most have of Sundance..
    United behind a common cause We can beat the snot out of these Deep State leeches .
    Let it start here. If someone will open an account I’ll put $100 in it now. You can send to Flynn, he’s fought a good fight. Or send it for the Whistle blower Cain who was just raided last week and screwed by our illustrious DOJ/FBI

    Like

  23. truthbomb says:

    I think Sullivan will reject the plea.

    Like

    • I don’t think that is going to happen. No one is asking for the plea to be rejected. Sullivan isn’t that “anti-Swamp” to do something extreme when neither party is asking for it.

      Not even Flynn is asking for it to be dismissed.

      He will give Flynn the minimum and publicly rebuke the Indictments and methods of the DOJ. He wanted these made public, so he has latitude in his sentencing opinion to rebuke DOJ malfeasance. That will be the end of this story. Sullivan will have kept the scandal defined in a very closed box that will end with no real consequences for the DOJ, corruption at FBI/Team Mueller.

      Only a dismissal would rattle the Mueller investigation and give P Trump a rational to shut it down quickly. That won’t happen. Sullivan isn’t anti-Swamp enough.

      P Trump will pardon Flynn is my expectation.

      Like

  24. Maybe we should contact Judge Sullivan with this revelation. I did. 🙂
    https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/contact

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Dr.Jay says:

    About the previous bit: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/12/17/breaking-pientka-and-strzok-joint-fbi-notes-released-judge-sullivan-orders-mueller-team-to-file-public-version-of-pientka-fbi-interview-fd-302/#more-157860

    SD posted a question/comment at the end:

    >> I’m still rather curious on whether we will ever find out why Judge Contreras, a friend of FBI agent Peter Strzok, was recused from the case immediately after accepting the plea on November 30th, 2017.

    That would be because it was found out that he had too friendly and recent contacts with Strzok, as they discussed in the texts (between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok), So I’m not curious about that.

    What I’m curious about is why that would not immediately invalidate the plea agreement made at the time, as it is also likely that insufficient exculpatory evidence had been made know to Flynn & his legal team, at that time.

    Like

  26. Dr.Jay says:

    Mike Flynn Wasn’t Tricked Into Lying, Mueller’s Team Says
    By Byron TauDec. 14, 2018 6:14 pm ET
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-flynn-wasnt-tricked-into-lying-muellers-team-says-11544829275?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=5

    Almost right. He wasn’t lying, but they sure tried to trick him into it…

    Like

  27. Pyrthroes says:

    This all stinks to heaven. Let’s hope Judge Emmet G. Sullivan pulls up his socks sufficiently to toss Flynn’s case, kiboshing Mueller’s wretched mess.

    Like

  28. Bulldog84 says:

    The document said “draft” because it was circulating for weeks/months so the hacks could hone it to their corrupt satisfaction.

    Once again, Mr. Van Grack demonstrates that his career is on suicide watch.

    Like

  29. 6x47 says:

    It occurs to me that when the two FBI agents came to the White House to speak with general Flynn, it did not occur to him that three of the top national security officials in the United States government were in a room and two were trying to jam the other one up on some contrived conspiracy charges.

    Like

  30. Scott Johnson, over at Powerline, has linked to this Sundance analysis of the release. There are some pretty smart cookies that regularly comment at PL, and many of their readers, also follow Sundance. Interesting, that Johnson doesn’t even have to identify CTH, he just refers to “Sundance”, a indication that EVERYONE knows Sundance is CTH.

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/12/flynns-fate-8.php#disqus_thread

    Liked by 1 person

    • spoogels says:

      Sundance is my hero

      Like

      • Johnson is one of PL braintrust that “outted” Sundance identity a year or so ago. He was quickly rebuked by some commentators and took that post down. Some commentators were banned from PL for complaining about it.

        At the time, a lot of PL people were quoting Sundance and linking to CTH. It was obvious the PL people didn’t like it. They were months behind the curve on the Obama/DOJ corruption and the coup attempt. They seem to be more up to speed these days, except for Paul Mirrengroff.

        Like

    • Dr.Jay says:

      Some people asking odd questions or making odd remarks. Perhaps understandable due to so much fake news. Such as:
      “This is a very important point. If it was to investigate logan act you probably need mirand”

      Yeah true, but how can you violate then Logan Act when you are already part of the US Gov? The NSA ‘elect’ is part of the transition team of the already elected new president, he/she get’s paid by the government when he calls in sick, already has a security detail, secure phones, office space, security clearance etc. Talking to other countries is part of that transition.

      Also becoming NSA does not limit your rights to freedom of thought, opinion & expression. for example : ” I do not think it really smart to extradite so many people, all on the basis of unproven & unlikely accusations ” is something that anyone in the incoming administration could have said, for good reasons.

      It is just a courtesy to not to involve yourself in foreign politics during the transition,a s you do not yet officially speak for the USA, but that is it. As it is also a common courtesy to NOT poison the wells & fields just before you leave the office, as Obama clearly did w.r.t. Russia, shortly before the inauguration of the new President.

      Like

      • 6x47 says:

        At the time, I likened Obama’s sudden interest in fomenting a diplomatic crisis and trying to goad Russia into retaliating to a tenant, in receipt of an eviction order, trashing the house before he leaves.

        Like

  31. spoogels says:

    Michael Isikoff, Who Met With Christopher Steele Now Doubts The Infamous Dossier

    https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/17/michael-isikoff-steele-dossier/

    Like

    • TMonroe says:

      Probably tactically advantageous, as they springboard from it to other conspiracies they can stall with using the help of people they’ve got on the fed rack.

      Like

  32. Dear Lord please let Judge Emmett Sullivan render justice today. Please give him the courage to hold the lawless accountable and free the innocent. Amen.

    Liked by 2 people

  33. namberak says:

    “Thanks to the Strzok/Page text messages we know the cover letter from the Special Counsel is misleading.” Pardon the cynicism but these days isn’t pretty much everything coming from the FBI considered to be misleading by default? It doesn’t seem to me that organizationally it’s able to be factual any longer.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. I won't back down (still) says:

    Bongino has speculated that the 35 person persona non grata action was a set up of the Trump administration. I am inclined to believe him after reading through these 302s. It is curious that Obama chose to do that after posturing heavily about Trump’s “whining” pre-victory about a rigged election. All of a sudden, after the fact Trump’s victory was Russia-meddling and a mass expulsion was something that caught Flynn (with all of his experience) off guard. Couple that with folks in the intel community knew that Flynn was traveling and/or consuming adult beverages while on vacation in the Dom. Republic and I can clearly envision that the whole thing was a set up, particularly in light of the revelations that Steele has admitted that his work was going to be the basis for Perkins Coie law firm to help Hillary contest the results of the election.

    Someone needs to look at the persona non grata/expulsion action in this light to at least kill off the feasibility of that thought. If it happened it is absolutely beastly and reckless on the part of the zeros and maybe done to deliberately cut the knees out from under Trump’s incoming administration which was admittedly light on foreign policy advisors without any gravitas (except for maybe Flynn and a small handful of others).

    Like

    • I won't back down says:

      Sorry forgot to mention, do you notice the themes happening here

      1) The punishment didn’t fit the “crime” vis a vis the expulsion

      and

      2) “it totally caught Flynn off guard” just like the FBI agents coming to liason with him at his office in the white house

      Like

  35. Lactantius says:

    It seems to me that by the time a person is dragged through the system over what is euphemistically called a “process crime” that there is a tacit admission that “the system” is just messing around like a cat with a mouse.

    Sir Thomas More: “the law is a causeway upon which, so long as he keeps to it, a citizen may walk safely.”

    In United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593, 599-600 (1995)., the Supreme Court held that in order to be guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1503, there must be a sufficient “nexus” between the alleged obstruction of justice and the judicial or grand jury proceeding that the accused is alleged to have intended to obstruct.

    Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in Aguilar: “we do not believe that uttering false statements to an investigating agent – and that seems to be all that was proved here – who might or might not testify to a grand jury – is sufficient to make out a violation of the catch-all provision of §1503.”

    Process crimes are not without purpose. The best defense against them is to remain silent and speak only though an attorney. Under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Flynn is guaranteed fair notice by the government that his right to liberty is in jeopardy.

    Comey recently bragged about sending in the FBI while the new administration was in the disarray of getting organized. His quip is a tacit admission that the intent was to catch people off guard in hopes of trapping them in a process crime. In other words, chat up Flynn so he wouldn’t lawyer-up. This leads to the whole Fourth Amendment about “probable cause” and warrants.

    Flynn was speed skated through his savings in legal fees paid in defending himself. Once the legal fee meter starts ticking for most people, only the government has the unlimited funds to drag you to submission. There is no government “ombudsman” system in which skilled referees call fouls on the prosecutorial proceedings.

    As a side note, Mueller and his merry band have been gifted with an enormous “rice bowl” of full time employment for themselves and their mates until who knows when. It is like hitting the mother lode. Supposedly, the DOJ oversees Mueller and his gold miners and keeps them “honest.”

    The result of Mueller vs. Flynn is that now a sizable public distrusts the prosecutors. Mueller’s prosecution of Flynn criminalizes Flynn’s “lying” when the nexus between the lie and any actual obstructive acts and malfeasance is so tenuous.

    In United States v. Brown, 79 F.3d 1550, 1562 (11th Cir. 1996).: “The exercise of federal government power to criminalize conduct and thereby coerce and to deprive persons …. of their liberty [and] reputation …. must be watched carefully in a country that values liberties of its private citizens.”

    Liked by 2 people

    • Lactantius- thanks for the research and analysis. Right on point.

      Like

      • Lactantius says:

        Flynn, we are told, lied. We don’t know why he did so. But “intending to obstruct” is where the wheel flies off the justice wagon. We all sat in disbelief when Comey gave Hillary a total pass on her server fluster cluck because ….. Comey couldn’t prove “intending to obstruct.” In fact, Comey flatly stated, no prosecutor would take such a case. Unless it involves Flynn and they are after Trump. And, since when, does an investigator make the decision which is actually the duty of the prosecutor?

        Duplicity makes all of feel like idiots. As Kurt Schlichter writes: Let’s try an example. If you are ex-military, or if you know anyone who was in the military, or if you aren’t a mouth-breathing half-wit, ask yourself – if you had done a fraction of what that Looming Doofus James Comey says Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit did with classified material, what would you be doing right now?

        Alan Dershowitz weigh in: ““Flynn did not commit a crime by lying. The lie has to be material to the investigation. And if the FBI already knew the answer to the question and only asked him the question in order to give him an opportunity to lie, his answer, even if false, was not material to the investigation.”

        In every case, if the cops don’t Mirandize even the most rotten of crooks, the information they obtain can not be used in court. Back to Schlichter: They are not even pretending now. Imagine, just imagine, if Trump had erased 30,000 emails that were under subpoena. Hillary did, and it’s cool. Andrew McCabe and Comey lied through their teeth to Congress. They’ll never be charged. Ever.

        We deplorables are sick of one rule of law for the sheeple and a freeway around the rule of law for favored elites.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Lactantius- you are absolutely correct. This is a terrible state of affairs. I can only imagine the horrors that Herr Mule Head inflicted on the Flynn family or what he threatened them with, but it must have been absolutely beyond the pale for Flynn to practically demand to take the plea deal.
          The prosecutors are all out of control. Also, if this is what the Deep State can get away with even when it comes to the rich, famous, powerful and one of their own, what chance do we Deplorables have?

          Like

  36. Watching the Flynn sentencing hearing right now. Looks like they broke him. He is going with the guilty plea. Apparently Judge Sullivan asked him if he felt he was railroaded and he said no. Some asshole on Fox News with Brett Baiers spouting anti- Trump BS.

    What a disgusting mess.

    Like

  37. 6x47 says:

    Oh, snap. So it turns out Flynn DIDN’T allow himself to get entrapped and fired in order to kamikaze into the Mueller probe and blow up the Deep State.

    Once again the depressing facts are exactly as they appeared: The Deep State killed Flynn and mortally wounded Sessions in their opening salvo. This was the repayment for Trump extending the olive branch by giving crooked Hillary a pass.

    Not appointing a special counsel to investigate Crooked Hillary (which would have completely foreclosed the possibility of the Mueller Probe) was Trump’s original sin. Using justice as a bargaining chip. For shame!

    Like

    • Lactantius says:

      The last thing we need is sentencing based on popular “consensus.” I don’t know the detailed facts of what Flynn did. We presuppose that a general is highly likely to be above reproach or he would never have made it up the ladder to the highest levels of leadership. However, the office does not sanctify the holder of it.

      Judge Napolitano, Chris Stirewalt, Shepherd Smith, Neil Cavuto all FoxNews talking heads constantly “report facts” that depend entirely upon context which is not known to either them or us. “If this, then that …..” is nothing less than speculation. Persuasive speculative rhetoric is not fact, even when based on selected past evidence. Coincidence is NEVER proof of causation. Highly informed speculation is no substitute for analysis after the event has been played out.

      What we have to resolve is the obvious hypocrisy in the rule of law depending on alignment with political party by the offender.

      Like

      • 6x47 says:

        I’m very impressed with the deep concern about prosecuting FARA violations as a criminal offense when the lobbying is on behalf of a NATO member and US ally. /sarc

        Like

  38. pnj01 says:

    I cannot believe this judge said Flynn arguably sold out the United State. Flynn needs to address that and call it out as BS. Judges don’t get to run the Foreign Policy of the United States and neither do lame ducks looking to set up stories as they leave office on why they lost the Election. If Flynn doesn’t challenge that characterization of what he did, he is inviting a jail sentence. He ought to protest and make it clear that he had displayed Patriotism aplenty throughout five years of combat service.

    Like

  39. lurker2 says:

    On CBS’ morning fake news show this morning, they said Flynn was one of the first targets of the Special Counsel. But Flynn was interviewed on Jan 24 2017 and Mueller wasn’t appointed until May 17, 2017. It could have just been sloppy reporting … or maybe it was a slip. What was Mueller doing prior to his appointment as Special Counsel? Was he part of the cabal plotting to remove Trump? Did he have the full security clearance allowing him to peruse the stash of collected data?

    Like

  40. Bill Henslee says:

    The most important question in my mind that has not been answered by the government is:
    WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE ‘VISIT’ TO FLYNN ON SUCH A RUSHED BASIS?
    Obviously, they wanted to catch him in a process violation via some slip of the tongue or memory lapse—but why did the conspirators want him out of office ASAP?

    Like

  41. Another Scott says:

    This is all nice information but useless. The judge delayed sentencing again but practically called Flynn a traitor during the proceedings. No charges will be dropped or changed. After all is said and done we’ll just be older, wiser and more cynical.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. I don’t know about the rest of you Treepers, but I’ve just about had it. I am so glad that I didn’t once again get my hopes up by thinking that Judge Sullivan was actually going to do something for our President Trump and his Deplorables/ supporters.

    Whatever good deeds Sullivan did in the past were just that- in the past. For whatever reason, he showed no mercy on Gen. Flynn and instead ripped him a new one.

    The big takeaway for me is that ANYONE who is high up in the Deep State/ Swamp regardless of what their title and rank is, whether they are a judge or a general, CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

    I don’t blame Flynn for what he did, even with the Turkish gig. He was just doing what they ALL do, trying to monetize his vast Government expertise to cash in some chips. I don’t think that’s particularly evil, it just comes with the territory. Flynn’s only mistake was probably his own arrogance to think he could get away with it. ** He severely underestimated his enemies- BIGGEST MISTAKE OF ALL.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6508397/Trumps-disgraced-national-security-adviser-Mike-Flynn-arrives-sentenced-lying-FBI.html

    Like

  43. 6x47 says:

    The judge knows what is going on with Flynn and the Mueller team. Normally, the prosecutor uses a plea deal to compel cooperation in other cases: But here, the prosecutor is using the threat of other cases to compel Flynn to accept the plea deal.

    The judge has delayed to give Flynn time to get out from under the SC’s threat at which time he will be more at liberty to accept the judge’s offer and withdraw his plea.

    Like

  44. brenrod says:

    It seems to me that unless the fbi informs and interviewee of the fact that its is a crime to lie to the fbi without being under oath then lying is everyones right…. except when under oath or informed of the law that lying to fbi is a crime when not under oath. Politicians and govs do it all the time… lie to cover up or lie to further their goals and agenda and it is NOT considered criminals. The real purpose of the fake crime of talking to kislak was to propagandize a tie to trump… the real crime of turkey is not even discussed. The nation has fallen into disrepute due to the criminals who infest our gov.

    Like

  45. I got my wish that sentencing be delayed, but not under these circumstances! I heard that Judge still had some issues with SC.
    Sullivan’s is furious with Flynn’s lawyers disengenous tactics. Bring a Motion to dismiss. Don’t bring me indirect stuff.

    Like

  46. yonason says:

    Is Judge Sullivan a deep state operative, or just insane? (can’t it be both?)
    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/12/show-trial-disgrace-judge-sullivan-suggests-mike-flynn-committed-treason-for-turkish-lobbying-that-he-has-not-been-convicted-of/

    See also here.
    https://www.weaselzippers.us/406005-michael-flynns-sentencing-delayed-by-judge-after-dramatic-hearing-for-ex-national-security-adviser/
    “‘I’m not hiding my disgust, my disdain for this criminal offense’, Sullivan said.”

    Thanks, Judge Sullivan, for inspiring my disgust and disdain for what appears to be your criminal incompetence. (I thought he was supposed to be a Conservative?)

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s