Pages

Tuesday, November 5, 2019

UPDATED: Flynn Case: You're Kidding, Right?

This is beyond belief. The Flynn case has been going on for years now--three years in January--and we're supposed to believe that the prosecutors never knew which FBI agent wrote which set of notes? If I'm the judge, I can't buy it.

UPDATE: 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.)

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 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.

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.

19 comments:

  1. What a clown show! Someone had hypothesized the notes were reversed, but I forget who it was.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, Yancey, I just updated at length. In that update I maintain that the "reversal" still doesn't solve the credibility problem. Let me know what you think. This does not jibe with my experience--at all.

      Delete
    2. I agree with the update- Pientka's notes do look like a rough draft to me, too- I thought as much when they were previously identified as Strzok's notes.

      I do think Powell is correct- that original electronic draft of the F302 prepared in January 2017 does exist, and Van Grack and team have played the drunk looking for his lost keys only in the areas lit by the lamppost.

      Delete
    3. The solution here is easy- Sullivan should haul Pientka into court, and question him directly about this.

      Delete
    4. "The solution here is easy- Sullivan should haul Pientka into court, and question him directly about this."

      It's not that easy, because for the last two years--as far as anyone can tell--Pientka has done a Mifsud. Haha! How did that happen, and why?

      The easy solution is to dismiss the whole hot mess with a special note to Bill Barr--it's your baby now!

      Delete
    5. I have a better idea, deep six the whole case. It smells like a rotting fish.

      Rob S

      Delete
  2. Having read Powell's book "Licensed To Lie" I know she's painfully familiar with judges who DO NOT CARE about government lies/obstruction. But she's also familiar with judge Emmet Sullivan who DOES care about government lies/obstruction. At least he says he does...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. This is why I say that the easiest way out for Sullivan is to simply dismiss the case and let the chips fall where they may. Barr and Durham should be eager to take this up.

      Delete
    2. Motion seconded. The tree's been poisoned from the start, Flynn must be let go, and the controversy regarding prosecutorial miscounduct is ripe for higher review, so to speak.

      Delete
    3. Totally agree, Brad. It's high time courts started taking this stuff seriously instead of pretending it's just mistakes or not intentional.

      Delete
  3. This is a major league admission of corruption, malfeasance, and malpractice. Documentation--as evidence--has had the chain of custody broken, corrupted.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I want Sullivan to punish the wrongdoers and then I want Barr and Durham to go at it, twice as hard.

    We're not talking about equals when we have the government vs. a citizen. The government has way more clout, resources, power, etc.

    Somebody needs to be held accountable so that this never happens again.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I tracked down my earlier memory- it was Undercover Huber on his twitter feed that hypothesized the authors of the notes were reversed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good catch by UCH, but as I say, that leaves a much bigger problem, because those sure don't look like notes to me.

      Delete
  6. Mark: might this zoo delay Sullivan's ruling?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Lou Dobbs asked Sidney Powell last night how long she thought it might take the judge to come down with a ruling. She estimated two weeks. She said (paraphrased) “he has everything he needs”...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That sounds reasonable. He has to do the writing and there's a lot to talk about.

      Delete