The Witch Hunt Revealed

[-Jrabbit]

Yeah, RealClear and Federalist both drawing conclusions (actually, crafting interpretations) based on evidence that they don't actually have, or because certain charges were not included in court filings.

[rah]

It's in the WSJ.

In the Opinion section.

[Kidlicious]

Comey said in an interview that it was unethical to interview Flynn without a lawyer present except Orange Man. He wasn't asked what his opinion of his boss had to do with treating Flynn ethically. It's in the WSJ.

[Kidlicious]

The 302s will be on a device somewhere. There's no way do destroy that evidence without destroying all the devices.

If they withheld exculpatory evidence that's a big problem.

Edit: Because this didn't go to trial.

[Kidlicious]

302 summary of his interview was dated August 22, 2017. As othershave already noted, the August 22, 2017 date is a “striking detail” because that puts the 302 report “nearly seven months after the Flynn interview.” When added to facts already known, this revelation takes on a much greater significance.

First, text messages between Strzok and former FBI Attorney Lisa Page indicate that Strzok wrote his notes from the Flynn interview shortly after he questioned the national security advisor on January 24, 2017. Specifically, on February 14, 2017, Strzok textedPage, “Also, is Andy good with F 302?” Page responded, “Launch on f 302.” Given Strzok’s role in the questioning Flynn, the date (three weeks from the interview), the notation “F 302,” and Page’s position as special counsel to Andrew McCabe, it seems extremely likely that these text exchanges concerned a February 2017, 302 summary of the Flynn interview.

Additionally, now that we know from the sentencing memorandum that the special counsel’s office has tendered a 302 interview summary dated August 22, 2017, we can deduce that an earlier 302 form existed from James Comey’s Friday testimony before the House judiciary and oversight committees.

During the day-long questioning of the former FBI Director, Rep. Trey Gowdy asked Comey whether the agents who interviewed Flynn had indicated that Flynn did not intend to deceive them during the interview. After Comey replied “No,” Gowdy pushed him, asking “Have you ever testified differently?” Comey again responded, “No.”

But when asked whether he recalled being asked that question doing an earlier House hearing, Comey countered: “No. I recall — I don’t remember what question I was asked. I recall saying the agents observed no indicia of deception, physical manifestations, shiftiness, that sort of thing.” (More on that testimony shortly.) This exchange then followed:

Mr. Gowdy: “Who would you have gotten that from if you were not present for the interview?”

Mr. Comey: “From someone at the FBI, who either spoke to — I don’t think I spoke to the interviewing agents but got the report from the interviewing agents.”

Mr. Gowdy: “All right. So you would have, what, read the 302 or had a conversation with someone who read the 302?”

Mr. Comey: “I don’t remember for sure. I think I may have done both, that is, read the 302 and then investigators directly. I just don’t remember that.”

President Trump firedComey on May 9, 2017, so the 302 of the Flynn interview Comey read must have been written before then. Why then was a new 302 drafted on August 22, 2017? And by whom?

The timing of the re-write—shortly after then-FBI Agent Strzok was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team after his anti-Trump text messages came to light—raises the possibility that Mueller wanted to scrub the evidence of Strzok’s taint. Having the second agent involved in questioning Flynn draft a new 302 summary would eliminate attacks premised on Strzok’s bias against the president.

But was that the only reason the FBI issued a new 302? Were there any differences in the versions?

Congress has been trying to get to the bottom of this question for months upon months. In February, senators Charles Grassley and Lindsey Graham requested the DOJ inspector general, Michael Horowitz, conduct a comprehensive review of potential misconduct in the Russia investigation and specifically asked Horowitz to answer these questions about the Flynn interview and the 302s:

“Did the FBI agents document their interview with Lt. Gen. Flynn in one or more FD-302s? What were the FBI agents’ conclusions about Lt. Gen. Flynn’s truthfulness, as reflected in the FD-302s? Were the FD-302s ever edited? If so, by whom? At who’s direction? How many drafts were there? Are there material differences between the final draft and the initial draft(s) or the agent’s testimony about the interview?”

Horowitz has yet to answer these questions, but the special counsel’s office now has federal judge Sullivan inquiring as well. Sullivan made history a decade ago when he ordered an independent investigation into “the systemic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence,” he discovered during the government’s prosecution of the now-deceased Ted Stevens, then the senior senator from Alaska. The DOJ’s misconduct in the Stevens’ case led Sullivan to enter a standing order in all criminal cases on his docket.

The most recent iteration of Sullivan’s standing entered in the Flynn case required Mueller’s office to produce “any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” The order further required the government to submit to the court any information “which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material.”

Flynn referenced some of these materials in his sentencing memorandum, specifically the FR-302 from August 22, 2017 and a memorandum apparently written by McCabe and dated January 24, 2017—the same day as Flynn’s interview. Now Sullivan wants to see those documents and ordered Mueller by Friday afternoon “to file on the docket FORTHWITH the cited Memorandum and FD-302.” Sullivan further ordered “the government to file on the docket any 302s or memoranda relevant to [Flynn’s interview.]”

What motivated Sullivan is unclear, but his experience in the Stevens’ case was a likely trigger. In that case, the government withheld 302s, didn’t include exculpatory statements in the 302s, and did not create a 302 for an interview that “didn’t go very well,” from the prosecution’s standpoint. Sullivan likely wants to assure himself that the Flynn case isn’t a copycat of the political targeting of Stevens from a decade ago.

Once the government dockets the evidence, Sullivan should be able to resolve two outstanding questions: First, what, if any, changes were made to the 302s? Second, did Strzok and his fellow FBI agent express a view on whether Flynn was lying?

Here, we return to Comey’s testimony from Friday referenced above, that “the agents observed no indicia of deception, physical manifestations, shiftiness, that sort of thing.” Comey further explained, though, that his “recollection was [Flynn] was — the conclusion of the investigators was he was obviously lying, but they saw none of the normal common indicia of deception: that is, hesitancy to answer, shifting in seat, sweating, all the things that you might associate with someone who is conscious and manifesting that they are being — they’re telling falsehoods. There’s no doubt he was lying, but that those indicators weren’t there.”

The earlier version(s) of the 302s will either support or contradict Comey’s testimony. Same with McCabe’s January 24, 2017 memorandum. The latter will prove particularly interesting given the conflict between Comey’s latest testimony and that of McCabe, who served as deputy director of the FBI at the time. In an executive session of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, McCabe acknowledged“the two people who interviewed [Flynn] didn’t think he was lying, . . .”

Of course, this all assumes that the special counsel’s office still has copies of the initial 302s created, which might not be the case given that when Mueller’s “pitbull,” Andrew Weissmann, led the Enron Task Force, his team, among other things, systematically destroyeddraft 302s.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/13/federal-judge-overseeing-michael-flynns-sentencing-just-dropped-major-bombshell/

[Kidlicious]

Judge Sullivan has demanded all revisions to the Flynn 302s. Immediately.

[Aeson]

At $130k a pop he wouldn’t be getting much out of it

[Kidlicious]

Cohen sentencing docs out. He was never charged with false statements for statements denying Russian collusion, such as "I was never in Prague." If Mueller had any evidence of collusion he would have charged Cohen with false statements for these.

https://www.realclearinvestigations....in_prague.html

Officials familiar with the case said the proof is in the lack of evidence in the 25 pages of court papers Mueller has filed on Cohen over the past two weeks. The alleged Prague visit is not evident in the plea agreement, the criminal information statement or the sentencing memorandum, none of which contain redactions.

In fact, language in the filings strongly indicates prosecutors have not found evidence to authenticate the Prague rumor, according to people familiar with the case, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information.

They point to the sentencing memo filed Friday, for starters. On page 5, Mueller stated that Cohen "has provided relevant and truthful information” about "his own contacts with Russian interests during the campaign” to prosecutors in their investigation of Russian election interference. Though Mueller details contacts Cohen made with various Russians, he offers no evidence he contacted Kremlin officials in Prague, as described in the dossier. The Czech city, in fact, is not cited in any of his filings, though Moscow, St. Petersburg, Davos and other cities are.

Prosecutors corroborated the information Cohen provided about his Russia contacts with evidence — including travel records — they seized from him.

In addition, Cohen pleaded guilty last month to a single count of providing false testimony to Congress related to a Moscow real estate venture – which suggests there was no reason for him to correct his September 2017 statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee claiming, “I have never in my life been to Prague or to anywhere in the Czech Republic.”

In that same sworn testimony, Cohen also categorically denied plotting with Russian officials to hack the election.

"I have never engaged with, been paid by, paid for, or conversed with any member of the Russian Federation or anyone else to hack or interfere with the election,” Cohen told the Senate. "I emphatically state that I had nothing to do with any Russian involvement in our electoral process.”

He added that he saw “not a hint of anything” that demonstrated Trump’s involvement in Russian interference in the election, either.

[pchang]

He wishes it was 3 yrs with Stormy Daniels.....

[BeBMan]

Just skimmed over the news, Michael Cohen sentenced to three yrs with Stormy Daniels or something.

[Kidlicious]

302 is dated 7 months after interview.

[Kidlicious]

FBI urged Flynn to talk to agents without a lawyer, led him to believe that he had nothing to worry about.

[Kidlicious]

Well, he is right that he doesn't need to know the source in order to verify something.

Example:
I see in a report that person x has beet at time y at location z.

I don't necessarily need to know who was the source of the information. I just need to have access to recordings of surveillance cameras at location z during time y, or have to interview guests/employees who were at location z during time y, in order to verify whether or not person x has been there at this time.

They don't have anything like that. They don't have primary sources. He's talking nonsense.

[Proteus_MST]

Well, he is right that he doesn't need to know the source in order to verify something.

Example:
I see in a report that person x has beet at time y at location z.

I don't necessarily need to know who was the source of the information. I just need to have access to recordings of surveillance cameras at location z during time y, or have to interview guests/employees who were at location z during time y, in order to verify whether or not person x has been there at this time.

[Kidlicious]

The Daily Caller reports:

According to a transcript of Comey’s testimony released on Saturday, the former FBI chief also asserted that it was “not necessary” for the FBI to assess the sources that dossier author Christopher Steele used to compile his report, which was funded by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign.

“I think I’ve dealt with warrants where you just identify that your primary [confidential informant], or primary source, has subsources, and so long as the court is aware of that phenomenon and that you’re speaking to the reliability of the primary source, to my mind, that’s a totally legit warrant application,” he said.

Comey is screwing himself. They have any email chain that proves this is a lie.