Posted on 12/13/2019 12:32:21 PM PST by richardtavor
On Tuesday, attorneys for Michael Flynn filed a sentencing memorandum and letters of support for the former Army lieutenant general in federal court. The sentencing memorandum reveals for the first time concrete evidence that the FBI created multiple 302 interview summaries of Flynn’s questioning by now-former FBI agent Peter Strzok and a second unnamed agent, reported to be FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka.
Further revelations may be forthcoming soon following an order entered late yesterday by presiding judge Emmet Sullivan, directing the special counsel’s office to file with the court any 302s or memorandum relevant to Flynn’s interview.
Flynn, who served briefly as President Donald Trump’s national security advisor, pleaded guilty more than a year ago to making false statements to federal investigators during a January 24, 2017 interview. During that interview, Strzok and (presumably) Pientka questioned Flynn about a telephone conversation the Trump advisor had with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
While Flynn’s sentencing memorandum methodically laid out the case for a low-level sentence of one-year probation, footnote 23 dropped a bomb, revealing that the agents’ 302 summary of his interview was dated August 22, 2017. As others have 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 texted Page, “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.
uring 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 fired Comey 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.
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 fired Comey 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.
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 destroyed draft 302s.
Malicious Prosecution
There needs to be Recourse
this is from Dec 2018........not Dec 2019
Many years ago, I was in DC and stayed at the Capital Hilton. Was at the bar with a friend and a DC cop came in. An Embassey had just been robbed and all DC cops were kicked out as the FBI had arrived.
Talking about the FBI, I still remember what the DC cop said...."The FBI can shred anything they please."
Ugh. With all that his happening now I was reading this in present day context. Should we impeach the OP (just kidding)
Isn’t Flynn an Air Force general, not a army general? Whoever wrote this article could not get the basic facts right.
year-old news...
Keep in mind, everybody, that at some chronological juncture in these machinations by FBI, DOJ, et al individuals, Andrew McCabe is reported to have said, “First we f**k Flynn, and then we f**k Trump”! Is it possible that Whore-owitz could have done his exhaustive investigation without ever encountering THAT statement by McCabe? NO! So assuming he IS aware of it; how and where has he buried it so that it is fastidiously absent from his IG Report?
But Judge Sullivan should let Flynn walk, and not just because he may lack a photographic memory. Instead, Flynn should be liberated due to the FBI’s evident misconduct.
According to recent news reports, the FBI encouraged Flynn to meet Strzok and his fellow interrogator without the benefit of legal counsel. In another redacted FBI document dated January 24, 2017, an apparent FBI official writes:
“I explained to LTG Flynn that my desire was to have two of my agents interview him as quickly as possible. He agreed and offered to meet with the agents today. … I explained that I thought the quickest way to get this done was to have a conversation between him and the agents only. I further stated that if LTG Flynn wished to include anyone else in the meeting, like the White House Counsel for instance, that I would need to involve the Department of Justice. He stated that this would not be necessary and agreed to meet with the agents without any additional participants.”
Last week on MSNBC, fired FBI Director James Comey admitted that he avoided normal procedures in Flynn’s case. “If the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House counsel, and there would be discussions and approvals of who would be there,” he admitted.
Instead, on its fourth day in office, Comey took advantage of the neophyte Trump White House and its staff, and sent the agents anyway. “I thought: It’s early enough, let’s just send a couple guys over.”
Comey bragged that this was “something I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in a more … organized administration.”
The fact that the FBI encouraged Flynn to exclude his or the White House’s lawyers from the interview is a brand new monument to Miranda rights abuse.
The Supreme Court ruled in a 1966 case, Miranda V. Arizona, that all Americans have the right to have an attorney present when speaking with law enforcement and need to be warned that they have the right to remain silent, and that anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law.
It would be bad enough had the FBI not reminded Flynn of this right. But to go the extra mile and bamboozle him into excluding an attorney during what Flynn seemingly considered a friendly chat was abominable.
The idea of Flynn going to prison because the FBI “got away with” hoodwinking him out of having an attorney on hand as he was grilled by FBI agents reeks of the legal systems in Venezuela or Russia, where the accused do not have legal protections that Americans enjoy. The FBI should not get into the habit of un-Mirandizing interrogation subjects.
"I hope this results in an investigation by the inspector general of the tactics used by the FBI," Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz said Tuesday on Fox News Channel's “America's Newsroom.”
"I think that Flynn was coerced into pleading guilty to a crime of which he was innocent,” Dershowitz added. “He was coerced by threats against his son, threats against his fortune."
Indeed, Flynn had to sell his house to pay his attorneys. Such financial ruin has befallen Special Counsel Robert Mueller's victims – even witnesses not accused of crimes who drown in lawyers' bills simply to testify.
Judge Sullivan should vacate Flynn's guilty plea, dismiss charges against him, order the FBI to pay his legal fees, and sanction Mueller and his band of enraged Democrats for this grotesque miscarriage of justice.
The above was printed ONE YEAR AGO ... December 18, 2018
In December, 2018, Trey Gowdy and other competent interrogators had no chance for Any cooperation from the corrupt FBI/JD, at the time of those hearings.
They did a SUPERB job laying pavement, nevertheless, for enabling the current Trump version of Attorney General to now LAND THE PLANE.
All this information thoroughly entraps Comey, with his own words, from his own Big Mouth, all of his story changes, lack of memory, etc., as this article demonstrates.
I was going to say, nothing shows up on the docket since about ten days ago, a routine motion to allow travel.
Did I miss where it mentioned the judge overseeing Flynn maters having said something important?
Sure didn't notice it.
All I noticed was talk about a remake of a 302 report.
Sounds like Judge Sullivan is preparing to vacate the guilty plea and dismiss the charges as the bogus fabrication that they are.
That’s fine. BUT you should post the correct date of the article. This is December 13, 2018... A YEAR AGO! The IG report was filed on 9th Monday and hearing on it on the 10th.
This very case heavily impacted by the Report. The FISA abuse involved FLYNN too, as he was surveilled on his phone calls.
The handling of the 302s is part of this IG Report in re the FISA warrants skip and hop to FLYNN and all others in the campaign and new WH.
Flynn’s case is going to be dismissed, and the perpetrator prosecutors may be put up on falsifying evidence, as will the FBI/DOJ perpetrators. And yes, Flynn will sue.
One year ago. Another year lost to Flynn. But a timely reminder of Comey and associates’ MO.
This Cannot Stand!
No voice or video recording? If I were the judge, I would dismiss the 302 reports as unreliable and demand a video recording.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.