easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,081
- 2,645
In the list of documents Mueller was ordered to present to the Judge, is a crucial 302 (a document memorializing interviews) detailing a July 19, 2017 interview with then-FBI agent Peter Strzok - Comey's and Mueller's proven co-conspirator who indicted Flynn for Lying to the FBI despite both Comey and FBI agents reporting Flynn never lied in his interview.
(Strzok was also exposed by the US IG for failing to indict Hillary aides Human Abedin and Cheryl Mills for undeniably committing the crime Flynn has been falsely accused of committing.)
The 302 in question is dated 7-Months AFTER the interview was conducted!
The US IG's report hammered / rebuked the FBI for NOT video-taping interviews, despite that almost every other law enforcement agency now using modern technology, not audio-taping interviews, and not even creating transcripts of the interviews.
None of this was done for the 'Hillary Interview'...and it seems like the FBI did not do so with Mueller either. Instead the FBI (Strzok) failed to do anything....until 7 months later, writing up a 302 off of memory from 7-months earlier (and / or political bias). During this 7-month period both Comey and FBI agents were stating Flynn NEVER LIED.
“Judge Sullivan has a well-established history of taking on discovery issues head-on,” Trusty said. “So providing a seven-month-old FBI 302 is absolutely going to be a red flag for the judge, and I can’t imagine there are not going to be questions tomorrow about whether there are contemporaneous notes, or a contemporaneous report, that is in the FBI’s possession.”
Missing Flynn document in Mueller file could rile judge at sentencing hearing
Mueller's and the FBI's evidence against Flynn are a plethora of extremely redacted documents, ZERO interview video recording, ZERO audio recording, ZERO transcripts, and a missing original 302 and instead one dated 7 months AFTER the interview.
Flynn's lawyer has testimony from the Director of the FBI and several FBI agents testifying that Flynn never lied during his interviews, and the recent evidence of how McCabe set-up Flynn, telling him during one conversation that was used later that the conversation would NOT be used as part of the official interview and how he did not need a lawyer.
(Strzok was also exposed by the US IG for failing to indict Hillary aides Human Abedin and Cheryl Mills for undeniably committing the crime Flynn has been falsely accused of committing.)
The 302 in question is dated 7-Months AFTER the interview was conducted!
The US IG's report hammered / rebuked the FBI for NOT video-taping interviews, despite that almost every other law enforcement agency now using modern technology, not audio-taping interviews, and not even creating transcripts of the interviews.
None of this was done for the 'Hillary Interview'...and it seems like the FBI did not do so with Mueller either. Instead the FBI (Strzok) failed to do anything....until 7 months later, writing up a 302 off of memory from 7-months earlier (and / or political bias). During this 7-month period both Comey and FBI agents were stating Flynn NEVER LIED.
“Judge Sullivan has a well-established history of taking on discovery issues head-on,” Trusty said. “So providing a seven-month-old FBI 302 is absolutely going to be a red flag for the judge, and I can’t imagine there are not going to be questions tomorrow about whether there are contemporaneous notes, or a contemporaneous report, that is in the FBI’s possession.”
Missing Flynn document in Mueller file could rile judge at sentencing hearing
Mueller's and the FBI's evidence against Flynn are a plethora of extremely redacted documents, ZERO interview video recording, ZERO audio recording, ZERO transcripts, and a missing original 302 and instead one dated 7 months AFTER the interview.
Flynn's lawyer has testimony from the Director of the FBI and several FBI agents testifying that Flynn never lied during his interviews, and the recent evidence of how McCabe set-up Flynn, telling him during one conversation that was used later that the conversation would NOT be used as part of the official interview and how he did not need a lawyer.
