Judge Sullivan Scrambles For A Lifeline To Bail HIMSELF Out Of Dropped Flynn Case

[Nostra]

God can you be so dense.
Page wasn't the original agent.

The statue refers to immigration document fraud but it covers any document fraud.

The statute refers specifically to immigration law therefore it doesn’t cover all document fraud. That would be a different statute.

Page wasn’t the original agent which is why she didn’t sign it. The two agents who did the interview did sign it. Therefore the document can’t be considered a forgery since it was properly signed by the proper agents.

This is without a doubt the silliest argument I’ve ever seen here.

So you're claiming now that she did not alter it?

Is that your story?

Because if she altered the 302, who is guilty of misrepresenting the facts, and who is guilty of fraud?

Answer: The agents swore that the 302 was accurate, which it wasn't, and Page was guilty of forgery when she changed the original 302. So Page is guilty of fraud and forgery as well as misleading the original agents. If the original agents, who remain unidentified, where aware of the changes and didn't state as much, then they are also guilty of fraud.

She edited parts of a draft. The final draft was signed by both agents and entered as part of the record. Page did not alter anything that had been finalized. She was part of the drafting process.

That’s not a forgery. Good lord. A forgery is when you create a document to portray as the real official document. This is the official 302.

She wasn't suppose to be editing anything since she didn't interview Flynn.

Says who?

The FBI, Dummy.

Are you the FBI? Where did the FBI say that?

FD-302[edit]

An FD-302 from the Warren Commission.
A FD-302 form is used by FBI agents to "report or summarize the interviews that they conduct"[3][4] and contains information from the notes taken during the interview by the non-primary agent.[further explanation needed]

It consists of information taken from the subject, rather than details about the subject themselves.

A forms list from an internal FBI Website lists the FD-302 as Form for Reporting Information That May Become Testimony.

Criticism[edit]
The use of the FD-302 has been criticized as a form of institutionalized perjury due to FBI guidelines that prohibit recordings of interviews. Prominent defense lawyers and former FBI agents have stated that they believe that the method of interviewing by the FBI is designed to expose interviewees to potential perjury or false statement criminal charges when the interviewee is deposed in a grand jury and has to contradict the official record presented by the FBI. They have also stated that perjury by FBI agents allows the FBI to use the leverage of a potential criminal charge to turn an innocent witness into an informant.[5][6][7]

 

[colfax_m]

God can you be so dense.
Page wasn't the original agent.

The statue refers to immigration document fraud but it covers any document fraud.

The statute refers specifically to immigration law therefore it doesn’t cover all document fraud. That would be a different statute.

Page wasn’t the original agent which is why she didn’t sign it. The two agents who did the interview did sign it. Therefore the document can’t be considered a forgery since it was properly signed by the proper agents.

This is without a doubt the silliest argument I’ve ever seen here.

So you're claiming now that she did not alter it?

Is that your story?

Because if she altered the 302, who is guilty of misrepresenting the facts, and who is guilty of fraud?

Answer: The agents swore that the 302 was accurate, which it wasn't, and Page was guilty of forgery when she changed the original 302. So Page is guilty of fraud and forgery as well as misleading the original agents. If the original agents, who remain unidentified, where aware of the changes and didn't state as much, then they are also guilty of fraud.

She edited parts of a draft. The final draft was signed by both agents and entered as part of the record. Page did not alter anything that had been finalized. She was part of the drafting process.

That’s not a forgery. Good lord. A forgery is when you create a document to portray as the real official document. This is the official 302.

She wasn't suppose to be editing anything since she didn't interview Flynn.

Says who?

The FBI, Dummy.

Are you the FBI? Where did the FBI say that?

FD-302[edit]

An FD-302 from the Warren Commission.
A FD-302 form is used by FBI agents to "report or summarize the interviews that they conduct"[3][4] and contains information from the notes taken during the interview by the non-primary agent.[further explanation needed]

It consists of information taken from the subject, rather than details about the subject themselves.

A forms list from an internal FBI Website lists the FD-302 as Form for Reporting Information That May Become Testimony.

Criticism[edit]
The use of the FD-302 has been criticized as a form of institutionalized perjury due to FBI guidelines that prohibit recordings of interviews. Prominent defense lawyers and former FBI agents have stated that they believe that the method of interviewing by the FBI is designed to expose interviewees to potential perjury or false statement criminal charges when the interviewee is deposed in a grand jury and has to contradict the official record presented by the FBI. They have also stated that perjury by FBI agents allows the FBI to use the leverage of a potential criminal charge to turn an innocent witness into an informant.[5][6][7]

Great. So where does that say no one else is allowed to participate in the drafting of it?

 

[Nostra]

God can you be so dense.
Page wasn't the original agent.

The statue refers to immigration document fraud but it covers any document fraud.

The statute refers specifically to immigration law therefore it doesn’t cover all document fraud. That would be a different statute.

Page wasn’t the original agent which is why she didn’t sign it. The two agents who did the interview did sign it. Therefore the document can’t be considered a forgery since it was properly signed by the proper agents.

This is without a doubt the silliest argument I’ve ever seen here.

So you're claiming now that she did not alter it?

Is that your story?

Because if she altered the 302, who is guilty of misrepresenting the facts, and who is guilty of fraud?

Answer: The agents swore that the 302 was accurate, which it wasn't, and Page was guilty of forgery when she changed the original 302. So Page is guilty of fraud and forgery as well as misleading the original agents. If the original agents, who remain unidentified, where aware of the changes and didn't state as much, then they are also guilty of fraud.

She edited parts of a draft. The final draft was signed by both agents and entered as part of the record. Page did not alter anything that had been finalized. She was part of the drafting process.

That’s not a forgery. Good lord. A forgery is when you create a document to portray as the real official document. This is the official 302.

She wasn't suppose to be editing anything since she didn't interview Flynn.

Says who?

The FBI, Dummy.

Are you the FBI? Where did the FBI say that?

FD-302[edit]

An FD-302 from the Warren Commission.
A FD-302 form is used by FBI agents to "report or summarize the interviews that they conduct"[3][4] and contains information from the notes taken during the interview by the non-primary agent.[further explanation needed]

It consists of information taken from the subject, rather than details about the subject themselves.

A forms list from an internal FBI Website lists the FD-302 as Form for Reporting Information That May Become Testimony.

Criticism[edit]
The use of the FD-302 has been criticized as a form of institutionalized perjury due to FBI guidelines that prohibit recordings of interviews. Prominent defense lawyers and former FBI agents have stated that they believe that the method of interviewing by the FBI is designed to expose interviewees to potential perjury or false statement criminal charges when the interviewee is deposed in a grand jury and has to contradict the official record presented by the FBI. They have also stated that perjury by FBI agents allows the FBI to use the leverage of a potential criminal charge to turn an innocent witness into an informant.[5][6][7]

Great. So where does that say no one else is allowed to participate in the drafting of it?

The part that requires it to be written by the agents who did the interview.

Are you really trying to convince us that any agent to go and edit any 302 done by other agents? Surely even you aren't dumb enough to push that bullshit...........oh wait.

Where does it say two anti-Trump lovers get to make up their own version?

 

[colfax_m]

God can you be so dense.
Page wasn't the original agent.

The statue refers to immigration document fraud but it covers any document fraud.

The statute refers specifically to immigration law therefore it doesn’t cover all document fraud. That would be a different statute.

Page wasn’t the original agent which is why she didn’t sign it. The two agents who did the interview did sign it. Therefore the document can’t be considered a forgery since it was properly signed by the proper agents.

This is without a doubt the silliest argument I’ve ever seen here.

So you're claiming now that she did not alter it?

Is that your story?

Because if she altered the 302, who is guilty of misrepresenting the facts, and who is guilty of fraud?

Answer: The agents swore that the 302 was accurate, which it wasn't, and Page was guilty of forgery when she changed the original 302. So Page is guilty of fraud and forgery as well as misleading the original agents. If the original agents, who remain unidentified, where aware of the changes and didn't state as much, then they are also guilty of fraud.

She edited parts of a draft. The final draft was signed by both agents and entered as part of the record. Page did not alter anything that had been finalized. She was part of the drafting process.

That’s not a forgery. Good lord. A forgery is when you create a document to portray as the real official document. This is the official 302.

She wasn't suppose to be editing anything since she didn't interview Flynn.

Says who?

The FBI, Dummy.

Are you the FBI? Where did the FBI say that?

FD-302[edit]

An FD-302 from the Warren Commission.
A FD-302 form is used by FBI agents to "report or summarize the interviews that they conduct"[3][4] and contains information from the notes taken during the interview by the non-primary agent.[further explanation needed]

It consists of information taken from the subject, rather than details about the subject themselves.

A forms list from an internal FBI Website lists the FD-302 as Form for Reporting Information That May Become Testimony.

Criticism[edit]
The use of the FD-302 has been criticized as a form of institutionalized perjury due to FBI guidelines that prohibit recordings of interviews. Prominent defense lawyers and former FBI agents have stated that they believe that the method of interviewing by the FBI is designed to expose interviewees to potential perjury or false statement criminal charges when the interviewee is deposed in a grand jury and has to contradict the official record presented by the FBI. They have also stated that perjury by FBI agents allows the FBI to use the leverage of a potential criminal charge to turn an innocent witness into an informant.[5][6][7]

Great. So where does that say no one else is allowed to participate in the drafting of it?

The part that requires it to be written by the agents who did the interview.

Are you really trying to convince us that any agent to go and edit any 302 done by other agents? Surely even you aren't dumb enough to push that bullshit...........oh wait.

I don’t think that Wikipedia is a governing document of the FBI.

Page was asked to proofread the 302 by Strzok. This isn’t a case of an agent just going through and editing whatever they want. Be honest.

 

[mudwhistle]

It's a forgery if the document they submitted was changed. Doesn't matter if the agents signed off on it if they weren't aware of all of the changes Page made and admitted to in her emails.

It wasn’t changed. Page did not alter the document after it was signed and submitted by the agents. The 302 that was originally submitted was never changed. I’ve linked the 302 in this thread already. No one changed it.

Page made some edits to a draft. The agents reviewed the final draft before signing it. After that, it wasn’t changed.

So you're claiming edits aren't changes?

Who's to say they didn't change material facts to make it appear that Flynn was lying. Changing a yes or no answer is enough to do the job.

Yes. Editing is changing. It’s changing a draft. That’s what you do with drafts. You change them until you finalize the draft. Then the agents review the final draft and sign off on it attesting that the final draft is accurate. Therefore, it cannot be considered a forgery since their signing off on it makes it the official document.

The 302 accurately reflect the handwritten notes from the agents involved.

Apparently not. Any edit is a change and any agent that signs off on the edits without notifying his supervisor is committing fraud.
I call this sloppy paperwork at best and a criminal conspiracy at worst.

Why? They were drafting the 302. That’s what you do when you draft. You make changes.

It's against regulations to change testimony after the interview.

I could care less if you think that's What they always do. They need to stop.

Several things happened here that shouldn't have happened.

They were supposed to Marandize him.
They were supposed to ask him if he wanted to wave his right to an attorney.
They were supposed to do alot of things including informing Flynn he was under investigation.

 

[mudwhistle]

The problem here is you're gullible. You actually believe that FBI agents never fudge their reports. That everything they submitted was a 100% exact copy of the original. Any changes whatsoever makes it an alternate version.....an alternate version was used to accuse Flynn of perjury, so accuracy was essential to the case. The I. G. stated clearly in his report that agents were guilty of "omissions and misrepresentations."

Now, are you gonna claim it was just an honest mistake??

Are you talking about the Transcript of Trumps phone call with the Ukraine President?

We could be, but we aren't.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Flynn pled to avoid imprisonment, if he withdrew his plea then he should be sent to prison for the crimes he committed.

After he is tried and convicted by a jury, of course, right?

.

He waived his right to a jury trial by pleading guilty.

On what charges? I was talking about the claim that Flynn should go to jail for something for which he was never charged.

But, you are telling us that NO ONE should ever be allowed to change their plea?

Really?

Go on record. This is your position?

Or is it only your position when it suits you?

.

 

[mudwhistle]

God can you be so dense.
Page wasn't the original agent.

The statue refers to immigration document fraud but it covers any document fraud.

The statute refers specifically to immigration law therefore it doesn’t cover all document fraud. That would be a different statute.

Page wasn’t the original agent which is why she didn’t sign it. The two agents who did the interview did sign it. Therefore the document can’t be considered a forgery since it was properly signed by the proper agents.

This is without a doubt the silliest argument I’ve ever seen here.

So you're claiming now that she did not alter it?

Is that your story?

Because if she altered the 302, who is guilty of misrepresenting the facts, and who is guilty of fraud?

Answer: The agents swore that the 302 was accurate, which it wasn't, and Page was guilty of forgery when she changed the original 302. So Page is guilty of fraud and forgery as well as misleading the original agents. If the original agents, who remain unidentified, where aware of the changes and didn't state as much, then they are also guilty of fraud.

She edited parts of a draft. The final draft was signed by both agents and entered as part of the record. Page did not alter anything that had been finalized. She was part of the drafting process.

That’s not a forgery. Good lord. A forgery is when you create a document to portray as the real official document. This is the official 302.

She wasn't suppose to be editing anything since she didn't interview Flynn.

Says who?

The FBI, Dummy.

Are you the FBI? Where did the FBI say that?

FD-302[edit]

An FD-302 from the Warren Commission.
A FD-302 form is used by FBI agents to "report or summarize the interviews that they conduct"[3][4] and contains information from the notes taken during the interview by the non-primary agent.[further explanation needed]

It consists of information taken from the subject, rather than details about the subject themselves.

A forms list from an internal FBI Website lists the FD-302 as Form for Reporting Information That May Become Testimony.

Criticism[edit]
The use of the FD-302 has been criticized as a form of institutionalized perjury due to FBI guidelines that prohibit recordings of interviews. Prominent defense lawyers and former FBI agents have stated that they believe that the method of interviewing by the FBI is designed to expose interviewees to potential perjury or false statement criminal charges when the interviewee is deposed in a grand jury and has to contradict the official record presented by the FBI. They have also stated that perjury by FBI agents allows the FBI to use the leverage of a potential criminal charge to turn an innocent witness into an informant.[5][6][7]

Great. So where does that say no one else is allowed to participate in the drafting of it?

The part that requires it to be written by the agents who did the interview.

Are you really trying to convince us that any agent to go and edit any 302 done by other agents? Surely even you aren't dumb enough to push that bullshit...........oh wait.

I don’t think that Wikipedia is a governing document of the FBI.

Page was asked to proofread the 302 by Strzok. This isn’t a case of an agent just going through and editing whatever they want. Be honest.

You need to be honest, because clearly Page had malice against Flynn.
All parties involved where given directives from the Oval Office to set up Michael Flynn. They were happy to do so.

 

[colfax_m]

Flynn pled to avoid imprisonment, if he withdrew his plea then he should be sent to prison for the crimes he committed.

After he is tried and convicted by a jury, of course, right?

.

He waived his right to a jury trial by pleading guilty.

On what charges? I was talking about the claim that Flynn should go to jail for something for which he was never charged.

But, you are telling us that NO ONE should ever be allowed to change their plea?

Really?

Go on record. This is your position?

Or is it only your position when it suits you?

.

I think people should be allowed to change their plea if they demonstrate coercion or misconduct. That hasn’t been demonstrated here.

 

[meaner gene]

It's against regulations to change testimony after the interview.

You know that 302's rarely contain actual "testimony". It's a summary of what the interviewee says, since FBI policy is not to record or videotape actual interviews.

 

[Nostra]

God can you be so dense.
Page wasn't the original agent.

The statue refers to immigration document fraud but it covers any document fraud.

The statute refers specifically to immigration law therefore it doesn’t cover all document fraud. That would be a different statute.

Page wasn’t the original agent which is why she didn’t sign it. The two agents who did the interview did sign it. Therefore the document can’t be considered a forgery since it was properly signed by the proper agents.

This is without a doubt the silliest argument I’ve ever seen here.

So you're claiming now that she did not alter it?

Is that your story?

Because if she altered the 302, who is guilty of misrepresenting the facts, and who is guilty of fraud?

Answer: The agents swore that the 302 was accurate, which it wasn't, and Page was guilty of forgery when she changed the original 302. So Page is guilty of fraud and forgery as well as misleading the original agents. If the original agents, who remain unidentified, where aware of the changes and didn't state as much, then they are also guilty of fraud.

She edited parts of a draft. The final draft was signed by both agents and entered as part of the record. Page did not alter anything that had been finalized. She was part of the drafting process.

That’s not a forgery. Good lord. A forgery is when you create a document to portray as the real official document. This is the official 302.

She wasn't suppose to be editing anything since she didn't interview Flynn.

Says who?

The FBI, Dummy.

Are you the FBI? Where did the FBI say that?

FD-302[edit]

An FD-302 from the Warren Commission.
A FD-302 form is used by FBI agents to "report or summarize the interviews that they conduct"[3][4] and contains information from the notes taken during the interview by the non-primary agent.[further explanation needed]

It consists of information taken from the subject, rather than details about the subject themselves.

A forms list from an internal FBI Website lists the FD-302 as Form for Reporting Information That May Become Testimony.

Criticism[edit]
The use of the FD-302 has been criticized as a form of institutionalized perjury due to FBI guidelines that prohibit recordings of interviews. Prominent defense lawyers and former FBI agents have stated that they believe that the method of interviewing by the FBI is designed to expose interviewees to potential perjury or false statement criminal charges when the interviewee is deposed in a grand jury and has to contradict the official record presented by the FBI. They have also stated that perjury by FBI agents allows the FBI to use the leverage of a potential criminal charge to turn an innocent witness into an informant.[5][6][7]

Great. So where does that say no one else is allowed to participate in the drafting of it?

The part that requires it to be written by the agents who did the interview.

Are you really trying to convince us that any agent to go and edit any 302 done by other agents? Surely even you aren't dumb enough to push that bullshit...........oh wait.

I don’t think that Wikipedia is a governing document of the FBI.

Page was asked to proofread the 302 by Strzok. This isn’t a case of an agent just going through and editing whatever they want. Be honest.

It went from : He didn't lie, to he did lie.

Please try to keep up.

 

[colfax_m]

It's a forgery if the document they submitted was changed. Doesn't matter if the agents signed off on it if they weren't aware of all of the changes Page made and admitted to in her emails.

It wasn’t changed. Page did not alter the document after it was signed and submitted by the agents. The 302 that was originally submitted was never changed. I’ve linked the 302 in this thread already. No one changed it.

Page made some edits to a draft. The agents reviewed the final draft before signing it. After that, it wasn’t changed.

So you're claiming edits aren't changes?

Who's to say they didn't change material facts to make it appear that Flynn was lying. Changing a yes or no answer is enough to do the job.

Yes. Editing is changing. It’s changing a draft. That’s what you do with drafts. You change them until you finalize the draft. Then the agents review the final draft and sign off on it attesting that the final draft is accurate. Therefore, it cannot be considered a forgery since their signing off on it makes it the official document.

The 302 accurately reflect the handwritten notes from the agents involved.

Apparently not. Any edit is a change and any agent that signs off on the edits without notifying his supervisor is committing fraud.
I call this sloppy paperwork at best and a criminal conspiracy at worst.

Why? They were drafting the 302. That’s what you do when you draft. You make changes.

It's against regulations to change testimony after the interview.

I could care less if you think that's What they always do. They need to stop.

Several things happened here that shouldn't have happened.

They were supposed to Marandize him.
They were supposed to ask him if he wanted to wave his right to an attorney.
They were supposed to do alot of things including informing Flynn he was under investigation.

No testimony was changed. The draft was edited which is exactly what you do with a draft. Once the draft is finalized and signed, it’s official. It was never changed after that and therefore no “testimony” if that’s what you want to call it, was changed.

The idea that you can edit a document as its being draft is silly and nonsensical.

Miranda rights only come into play when someone is in custody. This was a voluntary interview. Strike one.

They asked him if he wanted a lawyer. He said no. Strike two.

They asked Flynn to voluntarily answer questions to two FBI agents. Is he that stupid that he can’t understand there’s an investigation going on?

 

[meaner gene]

They were supposed to do alot of things including informing Flynn he was under investigation.

Miranda rights only attach when the person is subject to arrest. Example if a police officer is questioning a witness to a crime, who in the act discloses information that can be proof of a criminal offense, when the officer places him under arrest, that's when he reads his rights.

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.

 

[colfax_m]

God can you be so dense.
Page wasn't the original agent.

The statue refers to immigration document fraud but it covers any document fraud.

The statute refers specifically to immigration law therefore it doesn’t cover all document fraud. That would be a different statute.

Page wasn’t the original agent which is why she didn’t sign it. The two agents who did the interview did sign it. Therefore the document can’t be considered a forgery since it was properly signed by the proper agents.

This is without a doubt the silliest argument I’ve ever seen here.

So you're claiming now that she did not alter it?

Is that your story?

Because if she altered the 302, who is guilty of misrepresenting the facts, and who is guilty of fraud?

Answer: The agents swore that the 302 was accurate, which it wasn't, and Page was guilty of forgery when she changed the original 302. So Page is guilty of fraud and forgery as well as misleading the original agents. If the original agents, who remain unidentified, where aware of the changes and didn't state as much, then they are also guilty of fraud.

She edited parts of a draft. The final draft was signed by both agents and entered as part of the record. Page did not alter anything that had been finalized. She was part of the drafting process.

That’s not a forgery. Good lord. A forgery is when you create a document to portray as the real official document. This is the official 302.

She wasn't suppose to be editing anything since she didn't interview Flynn.

Says who?

The FBI, Dummy.

Are you the FBI? Where did the FBI say that?

FD-302[edit]

An FD-302 from the Warren Commission.
A FD-302 form is used by FBI agents to "report or summarize the interviews that they conduct"[3][4] and contains information from the notes taken during the interview by the non-primary agent.[further explanation needed]

It consists of information taken from the subject, rather than details about the subject themselves.

A forms list from an internal FBI Website lists the FD-302 as Form for Reporting Information That May Become Testimony.

Criticism[edit]
The use of the FD-302 has been criticized as a form of institutionalized perjury due to FBI guidelines that prohibit recordings of interviews. Prominent defense lawyers and former FBI agents have stated that they believe that the method of interviewing by the FBI is designed to expose interviewees to potential perjury or false statement criminal charges when the interviewee is deposed in a grand jury and has to contradict the official record presented by the FBI. They have also stated that perjury by FBI agents allows the FBI to use the leverage of a potential criminal charge to turn an innocent witness into an informant.[5][6][7]

Great. So where does that say no one else is allowed to participate in the drafting of it?

The part that requires it to be written by the agents who did the interview.

Are you really trying to convince us that any agent to go and edit any 302 done by other agents? Surely even you aren't dumb enough to push that bullshit...........oh wait.

I don’t think that Wikipedia is a governing document of the FBI.

Page was asked to proofread the 302 by Strzok. This isn’t a case of an agent just going through and editing whatever they want. Be honest.

It went from : He didn't lie, to he did lie.

Please try to keep up.

The 302 never states whether something is a lie. It just reports what the subject says in the interview.

 

[meaner gene]

Are you talking about the Transcript of Trumps phone call with the Ukraine President?

We could be, but we aren't.

Then why two different views on the editing of transcripts. Where presidential transcripts (covered by presidential records act) are routinely edited by people who weren't in on the call.

 

[meaner gene]

It went from : He didn't lie, to he did lie.

Please try to keep up.

Because it was the agents "opinion" that Flynn wasn't lying. It was a fact that from the content of the NSA intercept, that Flynn was lying.

 

[mudwhistle]

They were supposed to do alot of things including informing Flynn he was under investigation.

Miranda rights only attach when the person is subject to arrest. Example if a police officer is questioning a witness to a crime, who in the act discloses information that can be proof of a criminal offense, when the officer places him under arrest, that's when he reads his rights.

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.

Weird.....when I was interviewed for my TS security clearance in the Army they asked me if I wanted a lawyer present and had me swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Michael was not informed he could have a lawyer present nor was he informed that he was under investigation. And because he was under investigation they needed to inform him of his rights.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I think people should be allowed to change their plea if they demonstrate coercion or misconduct. That hasn’t been demonstrated here.

Is failing to turn over Brady evidence "misconduct" in your opinion?

Is evidence that the investigators were contemplating their strategy to get Flynn caught in a lie considered "material" in your opinion?

Many people would conclude that evidence showing how investigators were planning on trying to catch Flynn in a lie seriously casts doubt on the prosecution's case.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...be0f30-8a67-11ea-9dfd-990f9dcc71fc_story.html“What is our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” an unidentified person wrote in notes apparently taken before Flynn was interviewed on Jan. 24, 2017, four days after Trump took office.

That comment alone calls into question the intent element of the crime (knowingly and willfully).

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm...ual-916-false-statements-federal-investigatorBy its plain terms, § 1001 (as it existed before it was amended in October 1996), broadly reaches "[w]hoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully . . .makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations. . . ."

It is the Department's policy not to charge a § 1001 violation in situations in which a suspect, during an investigation, merely denies guilt in response to questioning by the government. See JM 9-42.160 for a discussion of the Department's policy. This policy is to be narrowly construed, however; affirmative, discursive and voluntary statements to Federal criminal investigators would not fall within the policy. Further, certain false responses to questions propounded for administrative purposes (e.g., statements to border or United States Immigration and Naturalization Service agents during routine inquiries) are also prosecutable, as are untruthful "no's" when the defendant initiated contact with the government in order to obtain a benefit.

And, as far as withdrawing the guilty plea is concerned:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-redux-what-those-fbi-documents-really-showA defendant may withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing if he "can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal." FED.R.CRIM.P. 11(d)(2)(B). Although "[w]ithdrawal of a guilty plea prior to sentencing is to be liberally granted," United States v. Taylor, 139 F.3d 924, 929 (D.C.Cir.1998), we review a district court's refusal to permit withdrawal only for abuse of discretion, United States v. Hanson, 339 F.3d 983, 988 (D.C.Cir.2003). In reviewing such a refusal, we consider three factors: "(1) whether the defendant has asserted a viable claim of innocence; (2) whether the delay between the guilty plea and the motion to withdraw has substantially prejudiced the government's ability to prosecute the case; and (3) whether the guilty plea was somehow tainted." Id. (quoting United States v. McCoy, 215 F.3d 102, 106 (D.C.Cir.2000) (quoting Taylor, 139 F.3d at 929)).

If there is any question as to whether the handwritten notes would be exculpatory, why would a Court not liberally grant the request?

.

 

[mudwhistle]

Are you talking about the Transcript of Trumps phone call with the Ukraine President?

We could be, but we aren't.

Then why two different views on the editing of transcripts. Where presidential transcripts (covered by presidential records act) are routinely edited by people who weren't in on the call.

Apples and Oranges.
You're confusing a criminal investigation with transposing dialog during communications. And the person that is transposing the transcripts needs to hear the conversation personally either live or by recording. Page altered the 302 without doing either. Apples and oranges.

 

[meaner gene]

Weird.....when I was interviewed for my TS security clearance in the Army they asked me if I wanted a lawyer present and had me swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Michael was not informed he could have a lawyer present nor was he informed that he was under investigation. And because he was under investigation they needed to inform him of his rights.

Flynn was NOT the subject or target of an investigation, or the FBI would have informed him, and informed him of a right to have a lawyer.

Flynn was NOT under investigation. They were questioning Flynn to verify what Flynn told Pence.

And as you said during your TS interview (which Flynn went through half a dozen times) they need not remind him "one more time"