Save Joe's Voice!

Among the newly released documents relating to the Flynn case are previously unreleased text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok. Among those messages is an exchange dated February 10, 2017.

The part you want to focus on is the blue part beneath the yellow. In that exchange we see that Lisa Page has been asked by Strzok to review his work on a document. Page gets back to Strzok and accuses him of "lazy work," producing a document that isn't "cogent and readable."

Strzok defends his work by saying,

Lisa, you didn't see my edits that went into what I sent you. I was 1) trying [not]* to completely re-write the thing so as to save [Joe's]** voice and 2) get it out to you for general review and comment in anticipation of needing it soon. I greatly appreciate your time in reviewing and your edits. I incorporated them. Thank you.

* The "not", as you can see, is Strzok's correction in a follow-up text.
** I inserted "Joe's" for the short redacted space because it's logical and it fits. More below.

What's going on here?


Petr Svab at Epoch Times points out that the date of these texts is the date of the FD-302 of the Flynn interview--Strzok Made Major Edits to Lost Draft of Flynn-Questioning Report, Texts Indicate. Flynn was interviewed by Strzok, who did the talking, and Joe Pientka, who took the notes and therefore drafted the 302. That interview took place on January 24, 2017, but the 302 is dated February 10, 2017, the same date as this text exchange. Svab notes:

Agents are supposed to memorialize their interviews in an FD-302 form within five days, but the earliest 302 draft Flynn was provided was dated Feb. 10, 2017.

The idea of the "five day rule" is that the write-up should be very close in time to the interview, so that the FBI is able to claim that the 302 represents something like a contemporaneous record of the interview. Sidney Powell was aware of that so she knew that in such a supremely important case the rule would surely have been adhered to. She demanded the original version of the interview 302--the version drafted by Pientka before it went through the editing committee, a committee that included persons like Page who weren't even present at the interview.

Since these texts were turned over to Powell as Brady material (exculpatory material)--and Powell has been demanding the original 302 of the interview which she claimed would be exculpatory in favor of Flynn--it follows with virtually ironclad certainty that these texts reflect the editing of the 302. That editing involved input from Page and McCabe and resulted in substantive changes that eliminated exculpatory details, such as the initially reported impression of Strzok and Pientka that Flynn appeared to be truthful in his demeanor. In other words, the 302 was rewritten to allow--at a minimum--the impression that Flynn may have deliberately made false statements to representatives of the US government: Strzok and Pientka. That was the impression that was being demanded by Andrew McCabe, Page's boss.

Why then did Strzok wish to "save Joe's voice"? When Pientka wrote the original 302--before Strzok's editing job--the document would have been saved in the FBI's system as having been created by Pientka. My guess is that Strzok was thinking ahead to a potential imminent need ("in anticipation of needing it soon") and wanted to be sure that the "voice" of all versions was the same. What I think that means is that Strzok believed that there might be a prosecution of Flynn. If Flynn's attorneys in such a situation should demand all documents, Strzok wanted to insure that the final 302 appeared to have been written by the same person who drafted the original. The supposition might then be that any changes were the result of Pientka's own reflection on the write-up.

As events unfolded, Flynn quickly resigned and it was only months later that Team Mueller decided to try to coerce Flynn into incriminating President Trump, using the threat of a "false statement" prosecution based on the interview. My guess is that the "voice" of the Strzok edited 302, as it was finalized, is quite different than Pientka's original--different enough that it would be apparent to any astute lawyer comparing the two versions.

For that reason Team Mueller would have been anxious to coerce a plea at an early stage before Flynn was able to get full discovery. That's why the threats of indicting Flynn Jr. within 24 hours were made--to coerce Flynn into a plea without even having seen the "evidence" against him or having time to reflect clearly on what was going down. And, in fact, the plea agreement stipulated that Flynn renounced any right to discovery, which Team Mueller's Brandon Van Grack has attempted to use to refuse to produce what is clearly exculpatory Brady material. When Powell took over Flynn's defense she immediately insisted on full disclosure, which put Team Mueller on the spot. The result was that they denied that there even was any different "original" of the 302.

These newly released texts prove beyond any doubt that there was such an original, and that it had been substantially altered--not by Pientka. And the fact that they were not released earlier demonstrates that the FBI and Team Mueller knew just how damaging they would be.

The texts also demonstrate that Strzok's edit job was undertaken with the intent to deceive:

Undercover Huber
@JohnWHuber 

Redaction is “Joe’s voice”, which means this previously hidden text shows definitively that Strzok was significantly “rewriting” the FD-302 of Flynn’s interview 3 weeks after it took place, while trying to preserve the “voice” of the original author, Joe Pientka. Highly irregular
Quote Tweet

Petr Svab
@PetrSvab

#Strzok texted he was “trying to not completely rewrite” the document “so as to save [redacted] voice.” @Genflynn's lawyer, @SidneyPowell1, said the document was the 302 report from #FBI's questioning of #Flynn https://theepochtimes.com/strzok-made-major-edits-to-lost-flynn-questioning-report-draft-texts-indicate_3335311.html…

11:54 AM · May 2, 2020

Next question: Had Pientka been asked to modify his 302 himself--and did he refuse to do so? Was framing General Flynn a bridge too far for Pientka, the Crossfire Hurricane supervisor? It's possible. One thing we do know is that between the January 24 interview and Strzok's February 10 rewrite Pientka headed out west, to San Francisco--and currently is in some undisclosed location:

Undercover Huber
@JohnWHuber 

Something not mentioned which makes this even more irregular is that at the time of this major Strzok “re-write” of the 302 (Feb 10, 2017), Pientka had already quit the Crossfire team (at the end of Jan, 2017), moving to the other side of the country to work out of San Francisco 

11:54 AM · May 2, 2020

This is very not good for the FBI and for Team Mueller. John Durham will undoubtedly use this discovery as leverage to obtain plea agreements and/or cooperation--full cooperation--from every individual named above: Strzok, Page, McCabe, Pientka, Van Grack. Nor would I like to occupy the shoes of Chris Wray or Dana Boente at this particular moment.