You Might Like
Archives

Newly revealed texts show Peter Strzok and Lisa Page altered Flynn’s interview notes

New text messages reveal that both Peter Strzok and Lisa Page altered Flynn’s 302 interview notes:

Loading...

NEWSMAX – Yet another bombshell development emerged Thursday in the case of former National Security Adviser Gen. Michael Flynn: the release of additional exculpatory evidence FBI officials had withheld from the courts and the defense for three years.

Crucially, this includes evidence that the Bureau’s official “302 report” filed by the lead agent who interviewed Flynn was edited multiple times, including by an official who never participated in the interview.

Thursday’s revelations come on top of yesterday’s disclosures indicating an apparent attempt by FBI officials to trap Flynn into committing a criminal offense during an interview.

The new revelation could prove even more significant: In addition to the apparently calculated effort to get Flynn to commit perjury or obstruction, top FBI figures, including FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, repeatedly altered the “302 report” that was filed after the Flynn interview.

That interview was conducted under highly unusual circumstances. Ordinarily, an FBI interview of a top West Wing official would be requested through the White House Counsel’s office, and would be conducted in the presence of legal counsel representing the official being interviewed.

That did not occur in the case of the FBI’s interview with Flynn, and Comey later stated that under “a more organized administration” he “probably wouldn’t have gotten away with it.”

Initially, when the lead FBI agent handling the case was asked whether Flynn lied during the interview, he stated that he did not believe so.

But over the coming days Strzok and Page would edit and revise the agent’s 302 report repeatedly, according to a document providing text messages between FBI officials that the defense counsel finally received this week.

According to the source, as supported by text messages also obtained by Newsmax, Stzrok, who also participated in the Flynn interview, rewrote the 302 extensively — although a text message from him stated he tried not to “completely re-write it so as to save [redacted] voice,” presumably a reference to the lead agent who originally wrote it.

Stzrok then shared the document with a “pissed off” Page, who had not participated in the interview, and who revised it significantly again, according to the Newsmax source.

The objective of the interview was to probe whether Flynn had violated the Logan Act, an 18th-century statute that has never been used in any criminal conviction. The Act makes it a crime for a U.S. citizens to interfere with the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. Many legal scholars find the law to be unconstitutional.

The documents received by Newsmax indicate the case had virtually been closed – suggesting the lead agent was satisfied no crime had been committed — prior to it being reopened by the direct intervention of Strzok and Page.

The documents, for example, show the probe of Flynn was about to be put to bed when the lead agent received a text from Strzok stating, “Hey, if you haven’t closed [the case], don’t do so yet.”

Apparently, Page was pleasantly surprised to find the matter had not yet been closed.

On Feb. 10, 2017, Page texted Strzok, “This document pisses me off. You didn’t even attempt to make this cogent and readable? This is lazy work on your part.”

Strzok replied, “Lisa you didn’t see it before my edits that went into what I sent you. I was 1) trying to completely re-write the thing so as to save [the lead agent’s] voice and 2) get it out to you for general review and comment in anticipation of needing it soon.”

So in a nutshell, the case against Flynn was about to be closed because the lead agent was sufficiently convinced Flynn had done nothing wrong. But Peter Strzok kept it open and then, after the interview on January 24, both he and Lisa Page rewrote the 302.

UPDATE: In an earlier version of this post I had completely bollocksed the timeline which led to erroneous conclusions on my part. I’ve deleted it down to the essentials and included a little more from the original write-up at Newsmax. My apologizes for getting it wrong the first time.

Below are the documents uploaded by Techno_Fog:

 

us v flynn by Techno Fog on Scribd

 

Loading...
To Top