Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
I don’t understand. Is this a mutual underbus-throwing? Because I don’t see that it changes anything.
I saw this a couple of days ago, so my memory’s a bit “off.” But this goes to opening up everything the government has been trying to keep from Flynn and Powell. The government is under a court order to provide any and all material that may exonerate Flynn to him, his lawyer, and the court. The government, of course, denies that there’s any of this so-called “Brady” material. I think Powell is using this fundamentally incredible mix-up to have the Court order the prosecutors to turn over everything. There’s reason to think the FBI, et. al., altered documents, committed perjury, etc., which all these documents would show (or not).
In sum, Powell wants to show that the prosecutors and the FBI were so corrupt or incompetent that the case against Flynn must be dismissed. Ideally, she also wants Strozk, Page, etc., punished.
Part, but not all, of Sidney Powell’s argument was that Strozk lied when he said Pientka was the primary author of the 302 because the statements in the 302 lined up incredibly well with what had been identified by the government as Strozk’s notes. Now, the government is saying that they misidentified who wrote the notes in question, which undercuts the argument but makes the DOJ out to be incompetent. They are going for the “we’re incompetent but didn’t screw up the initial prosecution” angle.
Remember the judge hearing this case is the same judge who heard and overturned the verdict in the Ted Stevens case.
I saw somewhere a handwritten form filled out by Strzok. The 302 were not mixed up. I have know idea the why of this new claim. I can only guess that the DOJ hopes the case is throw out on a technicality than show they are criminals.
Can Trump order the FBI to record all interviews and cease using the 302 form? I can’t understand how this processs has endured so long. It now appears that the FBI is willfully abusing the 302 process to frame am innocent person. It would be hard to believe this is the first time.
I am reading Lee Smith’s book now and am in the section where they framed Flynn. Seems Flynn was going to clean up intelligence community and shrink it, costing many their jobs, so they fought back by destroying him.
Also seems Flynn opposed the Iran deal and Obama feared he would undo it. Also, there was confusion over what sanctions they were referring to.
reminds me of a great line from the Walter Matthau movie, Hopscotch… by Ned Beatty, “Now I know what FBI stands for, F*#@ing, Ballbusting, Imbeciles.” If you haven’t seen it, I recommend it for a fun two hours.
@danok1 and @drewinwisconsin, anyone who reads and studies Sidney Powell’s most recent brief, assuming one is not one of the Trump Haters Kim Strassel writes about in her excellent recent book, has to come away with at least a suspicion that Lisa Page and Sztrok “invented” some phrases for the final report on which the prosecution was based which were not slightly different but diametrically opposed to the original. My reading left no doubt that this is exactly what occurred. For anyone who wants to take a look for themselves, here is the brief, and it is my feeling that the material around page 10, and especially footnote 9, leaves little doubt — none to me — that there were material alterations made in order to make it appear that Gen. Flynn made a false statement. It is equally clear to me that he did not, repeat not, make anything even faintly resembling a false statement about anything in that conversation. Any lawyers who were a part of those alterations should be permanently disbarred.
Sincerely, Jim
This sheds some light, more on amending the 302s than mis-labeling them.
@bossmongo, I saw that piece and what struck me was the heartfelt message of this veteran FBI agent mourning what Comey et al. have done to the organization he revered:
We will never really know the damage these thugs have done to our institutions — all of them, not only the FBI and Justice Department.
Sincerely, Jim
Read it last week. The audio version. Detailed and he names the reporters who spread the lies.
Read that , too.
My FBI agent daughter will visit this weekend. We will talk about this a bit. We don’t discuss politics but, in spite of her leaning left, she told me in September 2016 that she would NOT vote for Hillary. The FBI grapevine knew Hillary was dirty.
My thought seeing those names is now we know the leakers and the reporters they leaked to.
It seems the punishment for false statements is much higher than that. 3 years per incident is a starting point for negotiations.
Yes, yes, yes. I would have so much more respect for Director Wray if he would announce tomorrow that they were doing away with the 302 or, at least, recording interviews along with it. Does the FBI, when working with local law enforcement, actually say ‘don’t record’ because we don’t do that??? I can’t imagine any police force that doesn’t record everything these days.