Comey and Mueller

Have you ever been tricked into lying to any LEO?

Flynn denied asking Mr. Kislyak that Russia refrain from reacting harshly to sanctions imposed by the Obama administration over Russia’s campaign of disruption and said he did not remember Mr. Kisklyak saying that Moscow had backed off as a result of Flynn’s request.

Why lie?
 
Last edited:
LongestHorn said:
Well I think we all learned something here today. Don't talk to Russian spies. And if you do, and the FBI comes knocking, whatever you do, do not lie to the US Government. Unless your attorney is present to remind you not to tell lies to the US Government.
Click to expand...

There was nothing wrong with Flynn contacting the ambassador. This was common behavior and what "a normal person" would expect to be happening during a transition period. Every new incoming admin in American history has done the same, including Obama's.

And Flynn had no reason to believe himself in legal jeopardy. This is someone with a 33-year decorated military career. He has been a paratrooper, Army Ranger, intelligence officer, 3-star-general, and then the National Security Adviser. His resume alone should have earned him the benefit of doubt from the FBI. And would have from any normal, non-partisan FBI. In fact, Obama's FBI had the transcripts of the Flynn-ambassador conversation and could have just made note of it, asked him about it and given him a chance to correct the record. Why didnt they? Why did they even have the wiretap? The answer to those questions are the real story here.

Think about it using common sense. Which is more likely?
-- that a highly decorated military officer invited FBI officials to his office (without legal counsel) in order to tell bold-faced lies?
or
-- that he just forgot every detail of a conversation during a hectic, busy period?

Lastly, not sure why you keep calling their ambassador a "spy." Is this trolling or are you just uninformed? If the latter, do you even know that the two FBI officials behind this event (McCabe & Strzok) have themselves already been fired for misconduct?

I hope Judge Sullivan gives serious thought to tossing this stinking mess, or at least reducing the charges. And it sounds like he is. If he finds that the plea agreement was based on fabricated evidence, then it will be tossed. Even if not, a reduction from felony to misdemeanor seems appropriate based on the misdeeds of Mueller, Comey, McCabe, et al.
 
Last edited:
Joe Fan said:
Here is the timeline on the write-up (302) of the Flynn interview
Jan 24, 2017, FBI agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka interviewed Flynn.
Aug 2, 2017, Rosenstein issued new instructions to Mueller.
Aug 16, 2017, ABC News reported Peter Strzok had been fired by Mueller.
Aug 22, 2017, the FBI 302 on Flynn was written.
Click to expand...

Judge Sullivan has demanded production of the underlying documents in the Flynn case, something Team Mueller has refused to turn over -- this would include such items as the FBI 302s mentioned above, McCabe's memo, plus anything else related to that infamous Jan 24, 2017 interview of Flynn. And since it sounds like the FBI created multiple 302 interview summaries of Flynn’s interview, the Judge wants to see all of them.

So, putting this all together, the 302 that is the subject of this case was written 7 months after the interview. This 302 was written after Strzok had been removed for misonduct. And it also appears that Mueller may have ordered changes to the existing 302 in order to bolster his case. In other words, the FBI was ordered to keep editing the Flynn 302 until it suited Mueller. If this is true and if I were defense, I would want this fact out. I can guess their excuse/explanation but at least somebody is finally willing to hold Mueller's feet to the fire.

If anyone cares enough about all of this, then read the defense brief here
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5526092/DEFENDANT-s-MEMORANDUM.pdf

Also, if you dont already know, Judge Sullivan was the judge in the case of Senator Ted Stevens. He ordered an independent investigation into “the systemic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence” during that prosecution. The DOJ’s misconduct in the Stevens’ case led to dismissal of the indictment which effectively vacated the conviction. But by then, they had already killed his political career -- ring a bell? If not, how about this - among their misdeeds, the Stevens prosecutors withheld the 302s. Multiple prosecutors ended up in trouble over this and one of them even committed suicide after the exposure of their bad behavior by Judge Sullivan.
Point being that Flynn has a judge who is not afraid of the DOJ
Recalling the Injustice Done to Sen. Ted Stevens | Commentary
 
Last edited:
Here is the Federalist on the Sullivan production order on the Flynn interview 302

"....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.

* * * *
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. ....."​

Judge Overseeing Michael Flynn’s Sentencing Just Dropped A Bombshell
 
Last edited:
LongestHorn said:
Have you ever been tricked into lying to any LEO?

Flynn denied asking Mr. Kislyak that Russia refrain from reacting harshly to sanctions imposed by the Obama administration over Russia’s campaign of disruption and said he did not remember Mr. Kisklyak saying that Moscow had backed off as a result of Flynn’s request.

Why lie?
Click to expand...

The question isn't about whether or not he lied - although there seems to be a lot of question surrounding whether this was a deliberate deception or just a casual statement that turned out not to be accurate. The point as Joe has observed is that the interview process was designed specifically to get a casual, relaxed answer that may or may not be 100 percent accurate - whether intentionally or not - and one that had not been legally vetted. It's technically legal I suppose, but it's a pretty slimy prosecutorial trick. And then Mueller is able to threaten a guy and his family with years of litigation that will bankrupt the defendant and essentially coerce a "guilty" plea. At this point in the investigation, there's plenty of reason to doubt that a "guilty" plea has anything to do with actual guilt.

Never mind that the "lie" he told surrounded perfectly legal and acceptable activity, so if he didn't think he'd done anything wrong, didn't want to be bothered, and basically thought it was none of their business and wanted to avoid turning a casual inquiry into what it is now, I suspect that motivated him to respond like he did. I'm not arguing that was smart or right. I'm saying the prosecution is losing credibility the more we learn about how they approached the investigation.
 
Mueller was known for heavy handed tactics and using any tricks available to put people in a bind. That is why Comey gave him the job.
 
The vast majority (85%) of NSA databse searches were "non-compliant" with rules. In other words, 85 our of every 100 searches of the FBI/NSA database during the time period looked at were unauthorized and outside of compliance.

DuXKMlAVYAAGSxu.jpg


This review was for 6 months (Nov '15 thru Apr '16) during which times 1000s of searches were made, with 85% of them unlawful. The chief judge of the FISA Court has written that this non-compliance rate is typical for all time periods. In short, the Obama folks (especially Susan Rice) were allowed to run amok in the NSA database with political aims, and used the results for political targeting.
 
Joe Fan said:
Here is the Federalist on the Sullivan production order on the Flynn interview 302

"....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.

* * * *
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. ....."​

Judge Overseeing Michael Flynn’s Sentencing Just Dropped A Bombshell
Click to expand...
Would love to read the 302s released today if someone can post them.
 
LongestHorn said:
Would love to read the 302s released today if someone can post them.
Click to expand...

Thats funny

As I wrote above, Judge Sullivan ordered Mueller/DOJ to produce all the FBI 302s of the FBI interview of Flynn.

Mueller's response is now filed

As far as Ive seen, there is no 302 of the original interview in the court filing.

FBI rules do require one to be prepared with a short window of time. I cant rmbr if its 5 or 7 days but whatever it is, this rule was apparently not complied with on Flynn. So either there is not one, or Mueller refused to comply with Judge Sulliavn's order.

What Mueller provided instead is "a 302" of an interview of Strzok right before Mueller fired him. It's Strzok talking about the interview 6 months later (see below)
 
Last edited:
McCabe ordered Strzok to do the interview
Yates was not happy about it
Later there is an indication Yates and Comey/McCabe "argued about the FBI's decision to interview Flynn."
Both McCabe and Strzok were subsequently canned

DuZzhqoVAAAc898.jpg

DuZzOKVUwAA3-e9.jpg
 
Last edited:
The interview of Strzok from Aug 2017, where he explains the purpose of the FBI investigation. Heavily redacted.
Again, this is what Muller is relying upon and its 6 months after the interview

DuZydewUwAAJw46.jpg
 
Last edited:
McCabe used the media reports as the basis to interview Flynn.
You might recall here that Flynn was the victim of an illegal leak by the publication of that article.
Who did the unmasking and leak, which was itself a crime?
They dont tell us.

Also worth noting
That WAPO article posted 1/23/2017.
Flynn was interviewed 1/24/2017.
FBI/DOJ "sources" told the WaPo that they had already cleared General Flynn
Again, this was the day before Flynn was interviewed

Smell like a set up?

DuZx3f5VAAANCgg.jpg


DuUswAjUcAAQ6MP.jpg
 
Last edited:
So, not only was no original 302 provided but this 6-months-after-the-fact interview of Strzok is the sole basis for the charge against Flynn. This "interview" of Strzok was done the same week Muller hired him. So this is a brand new statement given to his new boss at the request of his new boss about a conversation from six months before. It seems certain that Mueller found the original 302 unacceptable.

Muller removed both Strzok and Page in July but this "interview" was not made part of the official record until August.

DuZ4_SaUcAA1fWh.jpg


DuaKRnRWsAAExoR.jpg:large
 
Last edited:
LongestHorn said:
Thank you. I’m going to have to see what Hannity says. Shep Smith is fake news, I’m told.
Click to expand...

I am giving the you the docs
I encourage you to read everything yourself and make up your own mind. Opinions in the media or from this board mean nothing in a courtroom.

Here is the full thing

 
Last edited:
The FBI admits it pushed Flynn not to bring a lawyer to that fateful Jan. 24, 2017 interview

Flynn might be able to argue that Miranda was warranted

They duped him into not requesting a lawyer. It's probably a very long-shot (since it does not appear he was 'in custody' at the time) but, if so, then the interview and all resulting discovery and charges are all tainted ("fruit of the poisonous tree").

Here they are basically saying "you can have a lawyer if you want, but it’s gonna cost you!"
DuZ9b5gUwAAzXXq.jpg
 
Last edited:
It's quite possible, if not likely, Peter Strzok did a timely 302 on Flynn, since he knows the rules and those were the rules.

So what happened?

What it sort of smells like to me is that Strzok later amended his notes and then destroyed the original 302. Maybe this is what really got him fired? They never really told us that, did they? It would explain why they hid him in "Human Resources" for awhile. So no one would ask them what he was specifically fired over. Keep in mind, Strzok was the top field FBI agent in the FBI. He was THE top guy.

I once defended an individual federal employee in a Bivens case who did this (re-wrote his notes later then destroyed the original). It was a jury trial so people in DC were nervous and watching it closely. But I won anyway. I kept plaintiffs so busy with other stuff, that they never really focused on what they should have been focusing on.

If this is what Strzok did, then Mueller, of course, does not want it coming public. However, I would argue he had a legal duty to provide these facts. In the case I mentioned above, in the very, very long deposition of the defendant, he never really admitted what he did. But the other side never really asked the right question either. But, just to be safe, I took a break, pulled him into an empty office and yelled at him that he had to admit what he did with those notes. Once I knew, I felt I had no choice. We talked it through so that he had his story straight. Then we went back in and I made him go on the record and volunteer this admission.

Also, with Mueller here, Judge Sullivan already specifically ordered Mueller to produce anything like that (see above maybe 2 pages back). So not just bad for Strzok but also potentially very bad for Mueller.

Does it not seem like this Mueller’s response is basically admitting, “Lookie here judge, OK so maybe we broke a few rules, but Flynn admitted he lied so give us a pass.” That is exactly the type of crap the Constitution exists to prevent.
 
Last edited:
Strzok text
I bet he shredded that 302
Or maybe lead prosecutor Weisman did, since we already know he plays dirty. Or, maybe it was McCabe?
Bottom line, they shredded it!
If I were the judge, I would demand an explanation. I might even make DOJ produce the people directly involved so I could judge their demeanor. As i wrote about above, Judge Sullivan already has experience with the FBI acting badly with their 302s so he seems like the right guy and the right time

DuZ_CgcXQAEujqo.jpg
 
Last edited:
Speaking Mueller's lead guy -- Andrew Weissmann -- has a bad history with 302s.
As the "driving force" of the FBI Task Force in the Enron prosecutions, Weissmann "apparently destroyed original 302s and drafts of the composite"

Sound familiar?

Here is the terrific Sidney Powell on Weismann. Powell is herself a former federal prosecutor and past president of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers --

"Weissmann “is not just a ‘tough’ prosecutor. Time after time, courts have reversed Weissmann’s most touted ‘victories’ for his tactics. This is hardly the stuff of a hero in the law. Weissmann, as deputy and later director of the Enron Task Force, destroyed the venerable accounting firm of Arthur Andersen LLP and its 85,000 jobs worldwide — only to be reversed several years later by a unanimous Supreme Court.”​

Here is her defendants' brief in one of the Enron appeals wherein he destroys Weissmann
https://federalappeals.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Enron_032408_Motion.pdf
 
Joe Fan,

We need to get you on Hannity. You would be a great guest. I know Catherine Engelbrecht personally. She founded true the vote. She got on, and she doesn't know half what you do. Thanks for all your research. I appreciate it. I am just shocked at what they did to Michael Flynn and others. Hopefully Judge Sullivan will throw the case out or drop it down to a misdemeanor.
 
My position on Mueller has been consistent. This SC investigation was supposed to be about Russian influence in the 2016 election and possible Trump Campaign collusion with the Russians in the election.

What I said in the beginning is that there was no collusion and whatever the Russians may have done or not done had no outcome on the results of the election. I predicted that nothing would come of it in this regard and all we wold see would be process crimes. I specifically referenced Scooter Libby/Valerie Plame as an example of what we were going to see. And what this was really about was an unwillingness to accept the outcome of the election. I thought it was all obvious -- but at least one poster attempted to argue with me about it.

I think time has shown me correct and this is exactly what we have seen -- Scooter Libby-like process crimes (lying to the FBI/perjury) and a very old tax case. None of it having anything to do with Russia and/or the 2016 election -- just like Scooter Libby had nothing to do with the publication of the Plame info (which was not even illegal to begin with! Which the SC in that case (Fitzgerlad) knew going in!)

Now, even the most committed liberals are finally coming around to my original position. What took them so long to see this for what it was?

 
Last edited:
AC said:
Joe Fan,
We need to get you on Hannity. You would be a great guest. I know Catherine Engelbrecht personally. She founded true the vote. She got on, and she doesn't know half what you do. Thanks for all your research. I appreciate it. I am just shocked at what they did to Michael Flynn and others. Hopefully Judge Sullivan will throw the case out or drop it down to a misdemeanor.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I admit I sometimes wonder if anyone ever reads it.
 
It is amazing the amount of politicization occurring within the DOJ. It proves there is no part of the government and its sphere of influence that isn't political and even partisan. Regulators, IRS agents, state university administrators, law enforcement officers, Federal, military, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top