“We need to get rid of the idea of 302’s as standalone evidence. If it’s not recorded, then it should be treated as hearsay.”
Agree. Especially 302s that are NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS.
Prof. Jonathan Turley (GWU), now a more legally conservative commentator than before, said what I knew from years ago in reading 302’s, namely that they were supposed to be written Contemporaneously to the interview date, not much later.
If I recall correctly, it had to be written no later that 24-36 hours after the interview in order to keep the “memory” fresh for the agent to flush out his notes.
Remember, Det. Mark Furman in the OJ case, kept a vile of blood evidence in his car trunk overnight, thus not only possibly letting it spoil, but also breaking the continuing Chain of Custody protocol on getting evidence speedily into the proper custodial hands and logged in a case evidence book.
Now, as this FR lawyers states, the second 302 was NOT a write-up of the original Jan. 24 interview per a 302 format, but a recollection by Strzok in Aug, 2017 that was made to seem like a second 302.
While the difference may seem minor to some, it makes all the difference in the world to Flynn because if the Jan 302 said that the agents didn’t feel that Flynn had been lying to them, and the Aug. 24th one did, then Captain Obvious says Strzok was tampering with the interview report for political reasons. Otherwise he would have had not justifiable reason to rewrite, even verbally, the original 302.
Strzok is corrupt. Need to hear what the other agent said/heard or even wrote on Jan. 24th and whether he was interviewed on Aug. 22nd like Strzok was. Make him an offer he can’t refuse - telling the whole truth or jail time, loss of job, loss of pension, banned forever from any kind of govt service.
Time to take names and heads, not necessarily in that order.