Flynn prosecution corrects Peter Strzok other agents reference in surreply, Nov 5 email and filing, Handwritten notes from the January 24, 2017 Flynn interview 

Flynn prosecution corrects Peter Strzok other agents reference in surreply, Nov 5 email and filing, Handwritten notes from the January 24, 2017 Flynn interview

“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October 23, 2019

“Former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe as much as admitted the FBI’s intent to set up Mr. Flynn on a criminal false statement charge from the get-go.”…Attorney Sidney Powell November 4, 2019

“Truth, due process, evidence, rights of the accused: All are swept aside in pursuit of the progressive agenda.
George Orwell’s 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four is no longer fiction. We are living it right now.”…National Review September 25, 2018


From the Michael Flynn prosecution November 5, 2019.

“November 5, 2019
Via Email

Sidney Powell
2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75219
Re: United States v. Michael T. Flynn, 17-cr-00232 (EGS)

Dear Counsel:
Last evening, we received word that our Surreply may have misidentified the authorship of the handwritten notes from the January 24, 2017 interview of your client. Specifically, we were informed that the notes we had identified as Peter Strzok’s, were actually the other agent’s notes (see Surreply, Exhibit 1), and what we had identified as the other agent’s notes were in fact Strzok’s notes (see Surreply, Exhibit 2).

This morning, we asked the FBI to re-examine the electronic records from the January 24 interview, and they confirmed that the government mistakenly identified these notes in its March 13, 2018 discovery letter. Strzok’s notes are those numbered DOJSCO-700021192—DOJSCO700021195; and the other agent’s notes are those numbered DOJSCO-700021196—DOJSCO700021198. We understand that this has caused some confusion, and we regret our error. The government has no other corrections to make about the notes.

In addition to this letter, we will be providing notice to the Court of our mistake.

United States Attorney
By: /s/
Brandon L. Van Grack
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Jocelyn Ballantine
Assistant United States Attorney”


More here:


9 responses to “Flynn prosecution corrects Peter Strzok other agents reference in surreply, Nov 5 email and filing, Handwritten notes from the January 24, 2017 Flynn interview 

  1. If Sidney Powell had not stepped forward to represent General Flynn, this
    error, more probable errors and the chicanery that took place would likely never have been revealed.
    Citizen Wells

  2. From fhl link:

    Sidney Powell:

    “It’s now impossible to take #DOJ #FBI word for anything. Imperative now more than ever that all original documents be produced–the entire FBI file & subfiles–handwriting samples of both agents, metadata, audit trail–everything! This is ridiculous & case should be dismissed”

  3. Sidney Powell on prosecution mistakes.

  4. Fox News calls it a mishap on their chyron.

    mishap —–


    unlucky accident

  5. Fox News stinks.

    I never watch it.

  6. AND NOW…………


  8. Ex 30 yr FBI agent Mark Wauck on the admission from the DOJ:

    “Here’s the real problem. There were two sets of notes, one long, neatly written, and detailed, and the other seemingly scribbled, as one would expect in an interview setting. Van Grack’s explanation is this: by switching the attribution of the two sets of notes, he’s saying that the long, detailed set of “notes” belongs to Pientka–the “primary note taker”–rather than Strzok, as we’ve been told up to now. That’s supposed to solve the difficulty of the lead interviewer–Strzok–also taking remarkably detailed notes. But that switch doesn’t really solve the credibility problem. Here’s why: The long set of notes actually looks like a handwritten draft of a 302. A rough, first draft–subject to approval from others–but a draft rather than notes taken in an interview setting. If you’ve taken a look at the “notes” that were originally attributed to Strzok–which we’re now supposed to believe were taken by Pientka, the “primary notetaker” during the Flynn interview–you’ll see what I mean. Follow this link and go to page 19. (P. 19 gets you into Exhibit 1, i.e., p 19 out of the full 46 page pdf.)

    Look, I spent about 30 years doing interviews, taking notes, reading (or attempting to read) notes taken by other agents. I guarantee you that in my experience no notes looked like the “notes” you’ll see at the link. As I said–they look like like a rough draft done after the interview.

    Which leads to another question: Who does a handwritten rough draft of an interview these days? I stopped doing that decades ago. Once I had access to a computer I took my notes and sat down in front of the computer and started typing. Why would Joe Pientka–or Peter Strzok, as the case might be–bother to produce a handwritten draft (if we accept that what we’ve been shown are simply not “notes”).

    This is why. Because that handwritten draft could be changed at will, whereas nowadays, once you save something under a case file number–even as a draft–that’s recoverable. There’s an audit trail, which is what Powell keeps asking for. So, if you’re an “investigator” and you’re not sure how you want to make that interview sound, then you delay creating that discoverable digital trail. And that’s a sure indicator of dishonest intent. [emphasis added]

    The big mistake the FBI made here is that they apparently said, woops! we need some interview notes in Joe Pientka’s handwriting. Hey, Joe, your rough draft will do! Or maybe they didn’t even ask Joe. Maybe they just said, hey, we need some credible notes, notes in Joe’s handwriting. Do we still have Joe’s rough draft? Ok, that’ll work.

    Somebody is lying. Maybe, probably, more than just one person.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s