DOJ Appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel - Jerome Corsi Rejects Plea Deal

[TakeYouToTasker]

14 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

The original 302 is “missing.”  
 

A 302 report is written from agent notes. 
 

 

This is a massive deal.

 

This is the government saying “this guy lied to us, but we have no documentation, just trust us”.  
 

This is the sort of thing that should, and perhaps will, repopularize tar and feathering.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I am actually trying to get clarification- is there an actual transcript they can reference? I was under the impression the 302 was just the notes of the agent.

 

As Buffalo_Gal already stated, a 302 is a written report from the interview. They are considered affidavits. Lying in one is a big deal, let alone editing one intentionally to deceive the court. We know there is an original 302 for the Flynn interview, but no one has ever seen it. The FBI has refused to produce it, despite both sets of Flynn's counsel asking for it. We know it exists from Comey's testimony: 

 

Despite this, the SCO attorneys have refused to even acknowledge its existence. This is an excellent thread about just how important it was to the SCO to keep this 302 from being subject to discovery: 

 

 

 

Beyond the 302, there is also the transcript of the Flynn/Kislyak call. This too has never been produced by the SCO, either in this case or in the Mueller report. Instead, only a snippet of the conversation was released with the assurances that it was accurate. Releasing that transcript would be illuminating, but the 302 is much more important (if only to be able to check it against the actual transcript). There are also classification/embarrassment issues that come into play with releasing the transcript, because someone would have to own up to recording the call (someone meaning some agency within the USIC or an allied country). Even though everyone knows everyone listens (or tries to listen) to those sorts of calls (especially when made on open lines, not secure ones as this was), no one likes to admit it.  

[Koko78]

8 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

....no but I'd bet he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night...SMH...........

 

Damn, that sounds much easier than eating all those boxes of Cracker Jacks to get my degree.

[Hedge]

 

 

Scalise mentions the indictments at ~30:30 in.  

Collins mentions the indictments at ~56:40 in.

 

(they may have been mentioned other places, as well...I was skipping around and didn't listen to the whole interview)

[billsfan1959]

5 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

As Buffalo_Gal already stated, a 302 is a written report from the interview. They are considered affidavits. Lying in one is a big deal, let alone editing one intentionally to deceive the court. We know there is an original 302 for the Flynn interview, but no one has ever seen it. The FBI has refused to produce it, despite both sets of Flynn's counsel asking for it. We know it exists from Comey's testimony: 

 

Despite this, the SCO attorneys have refused to even acknowledge its existence. This is an excellent thread about just how important it was to the SCO to keep this 302 from being subject to discovery: 

 

By policy, the interview of Flynn had to be documented in an FD 302 and, clearly, from Comey's testimony, one was created. It is normal for changes to be made to an FD 302 during the draft process. However, once an FD 302 is finalized and placed in the file, by policy, it cannot be edited for any reason. If there is anything in the FD-302 that needs to be clarified or corrected in any way, it is done through a memorandum or a separate FD 302. In addition, all notes taken during the interview process are placed in the file as well. Because the FBI does not record interviews, the notes are what the FD 302 is created from and are critically important if any discrepancies are alleged between what what said in an interview and what is in the FD 302.

 

The FD 302 is actually stored electronically in a case file database and can be accessed Bureau wide. If it was not uploaded, then it was a violation of policy and a complete deviation from the norm. If it is missing, then it would have had to have been manually deleted from the system.

 

If it exists, then I cannot, for the life of me, figure out any reason why a copy of the FD-302 (along with the interview notes) regarding the interview of Gen Flynn were not turned over to the defense.

 

Edited May 16, 2020 by billsfan1959

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

9 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

As Buffalo_Gal already stated, a 302 is a written report from the interview. They are considered affidavits. Lying in one is a big deal, let alone editing one intentionally to deceive the court. We know there is an original 302 for the Flynn interview, but no one has ever seen it. The FBI has refused to produce it, despite both sets of Flynn's counsel asking for it. We know it exists from Comey's testimony: 

 

Despite this, the SCO attorneys have refused to even acknowledge its existence. This is an excellent thread about just how important it was to the SCO to keep this 302 from being subject to discovery: 

 

 

 

Beyond the 302, there is also the transcript of the Flynn/Kislyak call. This too has never been produced by the SCO, either in this case or in the Mueller report. Instead, only a snippet of the conversation was released with the assurances that it was accurate. Releasing that transcript would be illuminating, but the 302 is much more important (if only to be able to check it against the actual transcript). There are also classification/embarrassment issues that come into play with releasing the transcript, because someone would have to own up to recording the call (someone meaning some agency within the USIC or an allied country). Even though everyone knows everyone listens (or tries to listen) to those sorts of calls (especially when made on open lines, not secure ones as this was), no one likes to admit it.  

 

Gee, who'd have thought a massive unelected federal bureaucracy would be corrupt and unaccountable? 

[Nanker]

17 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

If he really is an attorney .... I'm hoping it is a real estate or patent attorney (my cousin is a patent attorney, dry, dry, dry).  Please, please, please not a criminal attorney.  ?

 

He’s not. But to be fair, he’s a Notary Public, but he doesn’t know the difference. 

[GG]

5 hours ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

If it exists, then I cannot, for the life of me, figure out any reason why a copy of the FD-302 (along with the interview notes) regarding the interview of Gen Flynn were not turned over to the defense.

 

 

You sure you want to bet your life that you can't figure out a reason why a copy is nowhere to be found? 

[billsfan1959]

14 minutes ago, GG said:

 

You sure you want to bet your life that you can't figure out a reason why a copy is nowhere to be found? 

 

Haha. Not really. I actually do have a pretty good idea. And this much I do know: FD 302s do not just come up "missing."

[Deranged Rhino]

More on the 302: 

 

[SoCal Deek]

The 302 is yet another distraction. Follow the real story! The question is who decided that conversations between the incoming national security advisor and his obvious counterpart, the Russian Ambassador, were something that staffers should have reason to be listening in on? This goes WAY HIGHER than two FBI agents interview with Flynn. (Reminds me of the famous line from deep throat in All the Presidents Men.....you’re not looking high enough!)

[Deranged Rhino]

23 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

The 302 is yet another distraction. Follow the real story! The question is who decided that conversations between the incoming national security advisor and his obvious counterpart, the Russian Ambassador, were something that staffers should have reason to be listening in on? This goes WAY HIGHER than two FBI agents interview with Flynn. (Reminds me of the famous line from deep throat in All the Presidents Men.....you’re not looking high enough!)

 

It definitely goes higher than Strzok and Pientka. No argument. 

 

But I would contend that the 302 is very important as it's a slam dunk, black and white crime that leads not to Strzok and Pientka, but to McCabe, Comey, and Lynch. 

[Nanker]

 

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

More on the 302: 

 

It took awhile, but I found an Amici who can explain it. 

 

 

 

Edited May 16, 2020 by Nanker

[BillStime]

Nothing to see here...

 

Trump fires IG said to be investigating Pompeo, involved in impeachment probe

[Reality Check]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

Nothing to see here...

 

Trump fires IG said to be investigating Pompeo, involved in impeachment probe

Thank you, this is great news.

[Nanker]

 

[keepthefaith]

2 hours ago, BillStime said:

Nothing to see here...

 

Trump fires IG said to be investigating Pompeo, involved in impeachment probe

 

Probably a well earned firing given what we learned about State dept officials during the impeachment probe. 

 

 

[Albwan]

10 minutes ago, Reality Check said:

Thank you, this is great news.

 

Appointed to the role in 2013 by President Barack Obama

 

 

[BillStime]

15 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Probably a well earned firing given what we learned about State dept officials during the impeachment probe. 

 

 

Of course - Pompeo is a saint. 

[Reality Check]

2 hours ago, BillStime said:

Of course - Pompeo is a saint. 

Why are you so mad?