by Thomas Lifson
Hat tip: Darrell Simms
There is every reason to suspect that skullduggery lies behind this claim of an authorship mistake.
Sidney Powell, Gen. Michael Flynn's replacement lawyer, is pulling on a thread that is unraveling the conspiracy to generate a crime with which to bludgeon him into cooperating in incriminating President Trump in the Russia hoax. Late yesterday, The FBI made an admission — or claim — that strains credulity: that it has for years misattributed authorship of the notes used in preparing the Form 302 interview summaries that were themselves altered to incriminate Flynn.
Sundance summarizes:
The entire FBI case against Flynn; meaning the central element that he lied to FBI investigators (he didn’t); is predicated on the FD-302 interview reports generated by the two FBI agents; later discovered to have been edited, shaped and approved by Andrew McCabe…. And for almost two years the entire outline of their documented evidence has been misattributed? (snip)Here is the Sur-reply in which Powell lays out her case. She refers to it in this interview last night with Shannon Bream:
Obviously what triggered this re-review of the notes was a smart sur-surreply from the defense that highlighted how Peter Strzoks notes were far too neat, organized and well constructed to have been written during an actual interview. [SEE HERE]
For the prosecution to now reverse course and say the agent attribution was transposed, is either the biggest screw-up in a high profile case…. OR, the prosecution now needs to reverse the note-takers due to the exact, and common sense, reasons highlighted by the defense.
There is every reason to suspect that skullduggery lies behind this claim of an authorship mistake. Retired 30-year FBI agent Mark Wauck comments on his blog, Meaning in History:
Here's the real problem. There were two sets of notes, one long, neatly written, and detailed, and the other seemingly scribbled, as one would expect in an interview setting. Van Grack's explanation is this: by switching the attribution of the two sets of notes, he's saying that the long, detailed set of "notes" belongs to Pientka--the "primary note taker"--rather than Strzok, as we've been told up to now. That's supposed to solve the difficulty of the lead interviewer--Strzok--also taking remarkably detailed notes. But that switch doesn't really solve the credibility problem. Here's why: The long set of notes actually looks like a handwritten draft of a 302. A rough, first draft--subject to approval from others--but a draft rather than notes taken in an interview setting. If you've taken a look at the "notes" that were originally attributed to Strzok--which we're now supposed to believe were taken by Pientka, the "primary notetaker" during the Flynn interview--you'll see what I mean. Follow this link and go to page 19. (P. 19 gets you into Exhibit 1, i.e., p 19 out of the full 46 page pdf.)The railroading of General Fynn almost succeeded. Sidney Powell has done a huge service to our country. Getting to the bottom of this is imperative. Judge Sullivan will not be amused.
Look, I spent about 30 years doing interviews, taking notes, reading (or attempting to read) notes taken by other agents. I guarantee you that in my experience no notes looked like the "notes" you'll see at the link. As I said--they look like like a rough draft done after the interview.
Which leads to another question: Who does a handwritten rough draft of an interview these days? I stopped doing that decades ago. Once I had access to a computer I took my notes and sat down in front of the computer and started typing. Why would Joe Pientka--or Peter Strzok, as the case might be--bother to produce a handwritten draft (if we accept that what we've been shown are simply not "notes").
This is why. Because that handwritten draft could be changed at will, whereas nowadays, once you save something under a case file number--even as a draft--that's recoverable. There's an audit trail, which is what Powell keeps asking for. So, if you're an "investigator" and you're not sure how you want to make that interview sound, then you delay creating that discoverable digital trail. And that's a sure indicator of dishonest intent. [emphasis added]
The big mistake the FBI made here is that they apparently said, woops! we need some interview notes in Joe Pientka's handwriting. Hey, Joe, your rough draft will do! Or maybe they didn't even ask Joe. Maybe they just said, hey, we need some credible notes, notes in Joe's handwriting. Do we still have Joe's rough draft? Ok, that'll work.
Somebody is lying. Maybe, probably, more than just one person.
No comments:
Post a Comment