Strzok even edited the 302âs at least twice as well.
The Evidence
The most significant evidence against the FBI validated in Powellâs brief was the circumstances surrounding Flynnâs first interview with the FBI on Jan. 24, 2017 and the manipulation of the interview report, known as a 302, from that interview. The interview was conducted by now fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, whose texts messages later revealed he was vehemently anti-Trump and current FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka, who has never spoken publicly on the matter. In December, 2017 this reporter revealed that it was Strzok who had interviewed Flynn and that the interview itself was a set-up.
Powell noted that âon February 10, 2017, the news brokeâattributed to âsenior intelligence officialsââthat Mr. Flynn had discussed sanctions with Ambassador Kislyak, contrary to what Vice President Pence had said on television previously.â
Then, according to documents, âovernight, the most important substantive changes were made to the Flynn 302.â
âThose changes added an unequivocal statement that âFLYNN stated he did notââin response to whether Mr. Flynn had asked Kislyak to vote in a certain manner or slow down the UN vote. This is a deceptive manipulation because, as the notes of the agents show, Mr. Flynn was not even sure he had spoken to Russia/Kislyak on this issue. He had talked to dozens of countries.â
On Feb. 13, 2017 Flynn resigned as National Security Advisor.
Excerpt from my December, 2017 story:
The former U.S. intelligence official told this reporter, âwith the recent revelation that Strzok was removed from the Special Counsel investigation for making anti-Trump text messages it seems likely that the accuracy and veracity of the 302 of Flynnâs interview as a whole should be reviewed and called into question.â
âThe most logical thing to happen would be to call the other FBI Special Agent present during Flynnâs interview before the Grand Jury to recount his version,â the former intelligence official added.
Start there or like I said, start with the OP and there links.
His statement about meeting with Russians was not accurate, that doesnât make it a like and the agents specifically said they saw no indicators he was intentionally being misleading or deceptive.
Worse, the stuff released in the last 24 hours show they intentionally decieved him with a pre planned setup. If he admitted to having talked to the Russians before Trump took office theyâd charge him under The Logan Act underwhich nobody has ever been prosecuted prior or, if he didnât they would charge him with false statements.
They stated plainly in their discussion notes was to set him up to either get him fired, or to turn him as a witness in the investigation.
Thereâs no other way to read it.
