If this is true...could Strzok have altered Flynn's 302 Interview Report after the fact??? Could McCabe have ordered Strzok to change Flynn's 302 Report??? See below:



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/01/30/sara_carter_ig_report_fisa_abuse_memo_shocked_fbi_director_wray_to_his_core.html

Quote:

---

Sara Carter: IG Report & FISA Abuse Memo Shocked FBI Director Wray "To His Core"

....

SEAN HANNITY: 1.2 million pages already handed over to Congress

SARA CARTER: Correct. 1.2 million pages. But there are indicators right now that McCabe may have asked FBI agents to actually change their 302s. Those are interviews with witnesses. So basically, every time an FBI agent interviews a witness they have to go back and file that report.

---

1:08 mark about Rosenstein

Rapier108 said:

---

1:08 mark about Rosenstein

---

Holy **** if true that rosenstein threatened intelligence committee members he would subpoena their text messages and emails because he was tired of their investigation.

OK, so now that it is crystal clear that the Clinton Campaign " Conspired " with the FBI, DOJ and the Russians to interfere with the Election, shouldn't Grassley ask Rosenstein, " Hey Rod, How's Mueller's investigation into the Clinton Campaign coming along ? "

unnamed sources from Jarrett on this.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/02/isikoff-stunned-carter-page/

Quote:

---

Investigative journalist Michael Isikoff said Friday that he was surprised to find out that an article he wrote about Carter Page prior to the election was used to obtain a spy warrant against the former Trump campaign adviser.

The revelation, which was made in a memo released by the House Intelligence Committee on Friday, "stuns me," Isikoff said in an episode of his podcast, "Skullduggery."...

Isikoff was shocked, he said, because his very article was based on information that came from Christopher Steele, the former British spy who wrote the dossier. He said it was "a bit beyond me" that the FBI would use his article in the FISA application.

"Obviously the information that I got from Christopher Steele was information the FBI already had," he said, noting that Steele began sharing information from his dossier in July 2016.

Isikoff acknowledged the potential problem with the DOJ and FBI citing his article to support the FISA against Page.

"It's self-referential," he said of the article and its reliance on the dossier.

---

---

rats running for cover playing stupid

This hack is the same hack that covered up the Lewinsky scandal for Bill Clinton, he's complicit you can count on it.

---

Yep. Check his bank account for deposits or changes in spending habits.
....who said something about "cracks".

Quote:

---

Key fact about Mueller: he is very close friends with Comey, and was the mentor and close friend of Rosenstein. Mueller is also expert at covering up for lawless law enforcement: see his role with Whitey Bulger, BCCI, HSBC, Waco, Noriega, IRS/Tea Party & Fast & Furious.

---

Woah. Let that sink in.

More on Flynn & ?changing 302s:

http://therightscoop.com/catherine-herridge-the-fbi-had-concluded-michael-flynn-was-not-lying-to-them/

Quote:

---

Catherine Herridge: The FBI had concluded Michael Flynn was NOT lying to them

According to Catherine Herridge the FBI had concluded that Flynn was not lying to them, but that he was just not remembering things correctly as they had so much coming at them during the transition. She got this from Bret Baier, who learned of this from someone who was familiar with Comey's testimony:

Quote:

---

Bret Baier received some information earlier today from a source who has knowledge of FBI Director Comey's testimony to Congress earlier this year, that his agents felt that Flynn hadn't deliberately mislead them, but that he was somehow mistaken in his conversations.
What I'm trying to sayis that in the spring of this year, Comey's agents felt that Flynn had made a mistake. He was overwhelmed, he was confused. He couldn't remember the events.

But when special prosecutor Mueller came in and his team went through the information, perhaps with additional evidence, they concluded something very different, that there was a deliberate effort to do so.

---

---

So if Strzok & McCabe later changed the 302s...

The swamp has no bottom. This is stunning....


not really.

HeardAboutPerio said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

1:08 mark about Rosenstein

---

Holy **** if true that rosenstein threatened intelligence committee members he would subpoena their text messages and emails because he was tired of their investigation.

---

Well, that's a huge nugget!

Sessions needs to retire. New AG installed. New AG fires Rosenstein. Problem solved.

drcrinum said:

---

More on Flynn & ?changing 302s:

http://therightscoop.com/catherine-herridge-the-fbi-had-concluded-michael-flynn-was-not-lying-to-them/

Quote:

---

Catherine Herridge: The FBI had concluded Michael Flynn was NOT lying to them

According to Catherine Herridge the FBI had concluded that Flynn was not lying to them, but that he was just not remembering things correctly as they had so much coming at them during the transition. She got this from Bret Baier, who learned of this from someone who was familiar with Comey's testimony:

Quote:

---

Bret Baier received some information earlier today from a source who has knowledge of FBI Director Comey's testimony to Congress earlier this year, that his agents felt that Flynn hadn't deliberately mislead them, but that he was somehow mistaken in his conversations.
What I'm trying to sayis that in the spring of this year, Comey's agents felt that Flynn had made a mistake. He was overwhelmed, he was confused. He couldn't remember the events.

But when special prosecutor Mueller came in and his team went through the information, perhaps with additional evidence, they concluded something very different, that there was a deliberate effort to do so.

---

---

So if Strzok & McCabe later changed the 302s...

---

Flynn gets his charges dropped.

drcrinum said:

---

IDAGG said:

---

Quote:

---

This isn't the first time Page has been under watch, says CNN. "U.S. officials briefed on the probe" allegedly told the outlet that "Page had been the subject of a secret intelligence surveillance warrant since 2014, earlier than had been previously reported."

---

https://www.dailywire.com/news/26576/heres-everything-you-need-know-about-fisa-scandal-frank-camp

---

Poor chap representing himself -- limited financial assets. Scared to death that he was going to be charged like Papadopoulos -- repeated that multiple times -- Schiff, the a*****e, ate him up like breakfast cereal. But Page insisted he did not know or ever meet with the 2 principal Russians identified in the dossier = end of story. Plus he had an airtight alibi concerning where he was and with whom he met.

I've also watched interviews on TV/internet with Page -- he's a fruitcake/ivory tower person, even if he is an alumnus from the Naval Academy, my alma mater.

---

drcrinium, I remember this post of yours a few days ago. I ran into some stuff that corroborates what you say about page. There is a NYT article about him from December 18 that does portray him as a lightweight and a flake. In addition, that interview on Fox last night with Brett Baier and Nunes mentioned the same thing...a intercept of two Russian intelligence guys who called Page an "idiot". It sounds like Page is so naive that he may have been speaking to whomever would give him the time of day and happened to run into some Russian intelligence agents who figured out he was too flaky to even attempt to recruit. This poor guy may get chewed up and spit out and never know what hit him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/18/magazine/what-if-anything-does-carter-page-know.html

Nunes interview that you have actually posted yesterday evening. In it Nunes also mentions that they have testimony that Russian intercepts called Page an "idiot"

Quote:

---

Well, that's a huge nugget!

---

And a lot more. Threatening those with Congressional Oversight over his department is a gross abuse of power, particularly so since he stated his motive...they were pissing him off. That's personal. Utilizing his office as authority for abuse of the courts (applying for a subpoena w/o probable cause) for personal reasons is not allowed.

If he said that, in those terms, he's losing it.

I hope this is more than hearsay.

I can't read the WSJ since it's paywalled to me (former Internet subscriber from years ago), but ....4 different FISA Court judges involved in the Carter Page surveillance & renewals??? Why a different judge each time? Anyone know if this is a requirement? Or could this be judge shopping so as not to present the same info each time in order to obtain the renewal? My first instinct is that this sounds shady.

And notice: Contreras was obviously involved once. He was the one suddenly recused from Flynn's case.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Well, that's a huge nugget!

---

And a lot more. Threatening those with Congressional Oversight over his department is a gross abuse of power, particularly so since he stated his motive...they were pissing him off. That's personal. Utilizing his office as authority for abuse of the courts (applying for a subpoena w/o probable cause) for personal reasons is not allowed.

If he said that, in those terms, he's losing it.

---

Absolutely amazing!

The Libtard Democrats and their Media Hacks are going to have a very hard time trying to put a lid on this huge Pandora's Box !

Quote:

---

Chuck Grassley Memo Comes Next Question Surrounds FBI Knowledge of Steele Shopping Dossier To Media

...The HPSCI memo notes the FBI relationship with Christopher Steele was terminated after the FISA application (Oct. 21st, 2016), as a result of the Mother Jones article from October 30th, 2016. Media contact by an FBI material witness is immediately disqualifying.

The question is: did the FBI submit the FISA application under false pretenses? Did the FBI actually know Christopher Steele was shopping the dossier to the media prior to their FISA court submission?

The HPSCI memo gives the FBI the benefit of doubt by presuming the FBI were unaware or "lied to". The FD-302's (FBI investigative interview notes), which appear to have been turned over to Senate Chairman Chuck Grassley, would contain the evidence to support the FBI being duped OR show the FBI knew, and proceeded in using the dossier despite disqualifying knowledge of media involvement.

The answers to those important questions appears to be the looming in the FBI classified documents behind the Grassley criminal referral.

---

The Isikoff September 23, 2016 article was used in the initial FISA Warrant Application -- the circular corroboration. Did the FBI deliberately mislead (lie) that they were unaware that Steele had shopped the dossier contents in September 2016 to the media, or did Steele lie to/misled the FBI and say that he had not shared any info to the media? That will be a major subject in Grassley's Memo and likely was the subject in Grassley's criminal referral to the DOJ concerning Steele.

Quote:

---

BREAKING: On The Same Day Trump Releases the Nunes Memo A Federal Judge Keeps The Comey Memos Secret

On the same day the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released the Nunes memo showing the FBI relied on the salacious and unverified Trump dossier to obtain a surveillance warrant on Carter Page, a federal judge ruled to withhold the Comey memos. The memos, authored by former FBI Director James Comey, are about his nine private conversations with President-elect and President Trump.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who ruled in favor of the FBI's request to keep the Comey memos secret, also sits on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The FISA court is the same court that approved the surveillance on Trump associates.

Boasberg refused to release the documents on the basis they were still being used by special counsel Robert Mueller in his investigation of the alleged Russian collusion with Trump associates.

The judge ruled, "the Comey Memos, at least for now, will remain in the hands of the Special Counsel and not the public."

---

Quote:

---

I can't read the WSJ since it's paywalled to me (former Internet subscriber from years ago), but ....4 different FISA Court judges involved in the Carter Page surveillance & renewals??? Why a different judge each time? Anyone know if this is a requirement? Or could this be judge shopping so as not to present the same info each time in order to obtain the renewal? My first instinct is that this sounds shady.

---

Good question. My assumption is that once granted, the matter would be retained by that judge for subsequent renewals.

I have no explanation based on what little we know. Could be innocuous, could be judge-shopping.

Quote:

---

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who ruled in favor of the FBI's request to keep the Comey memos secret, also sits on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The FISA court is the same court that approved the surveillance on Trump associates.

Boasberg refused to release the documents on the basis they were still being used by special counsel Robert Mueller in his investigation of the alleged Russian collusion with Trump associates.

The judge ruled, "the Comey Memos, at least for now, will remain in the hands of the Special Counsel and not the public."

---

That's the wrong reason. Judge should have just said the memos contain classified information and left it that. This judge didn't do Mueller any favors, although he may done a solid for Comey, for as long as it stands.

Looks like a cover-up by Mueller.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

We talked about Cody Shearer and a second memo back on Page 114 of this thread. He's friends with Sid Blumenthal, HRC's top advisor. This is likely the reason that Grassley requested all communications between Shearer/Blumenthal and several individuals to whom he sent formal letters of inquiry on January 25, 2017: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Donna Brazile, John Podesta, & Joel Benenson. Grassley is the meticulous investigator -- he sees things other don't.

Can Boasberg's ruling be Appealed ?

Rep. John Ratcliffe, R - Texas 4th Congressional District (Northeast Texas).
Not on the HPSIC, but is on the House Judiciary Committee.

oysterbayAG said:

---

Can Boasberg's ruling be Appealed ?

---

Honestly it's a pretty hollow ruling. If the memo's are being held as evidense by the Special Counsel for an ongoing case, releasing them to the public isn't an option really anyway. It's a headline made to make the resistance think the are defying the POTUS when in fact it's a pretty weak stand.

drcrinum said:

---

Rep. John Ratcliffe, R - Texas 4th Congressional District (Northeast Texas).
Not on the HPSIC, but is on the House Judiciary Committee.

---

oysterbayAG said:

---

Can Boasberg's ruling be Appealed ?

---

It's a FOIA request. So yes but procedurally the judge said, "Not now," he didn't say, "Never, ever."

On appeal, the issue then becomes how long it takes for a delay to become denial? Does the public's interest outweigh the temporary delay during a Special Counsel investigation that might be interfered with by releasing them and affect potential future criminal prosecutions??

Does that sound like mostly BS?? Yeah, but that's pretty much how this crap works.

on the contrary, saying "its classified" would have been the wrong reason and would have rightfully raised many eyebrows.

one of the exemptions claimed by the FBI under 5 USC 552 was:

Quote:

---

(7)

records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;

---

specific to subpart (a), the court said:

Quote:

---

To that end, "Exemption 7(A) does not require a presently pending 'enforcement proceeding.'" Ctr. for Nat'l Security, 331 F.3d at 926. Instead, "an ongoing criminal investigation typically triggers Exemption 7(A)." CREW v. DOJ, 746 F.3d 1082, 1098 (D.C. Cir. 2014). "(S)o long as the investigation continues to gather evidence for a possible future criminal case, and that case would be jeopardized by the premature release of that evidence, Exemption 7(A) applies." Juarez v. Dep't of Justice, 518 F.3d 54, 59 (D.C. Cir. 2008); see also Sussman v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d 1106, 1114 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ("The enforcement proceedings need not be currently ongoing; it suffices for them to be reasonably anticipated.") (internal quotation marks omitted).
In evaluating the Department's Exemption 7(A) defense, this Court must "give deference to an agency's predictive judgment of the harm that will result from disclosure of information." CREW, 746 F.3d at 1098. It cannot, however, act as a rubber stamp simply because the agency "assert(s) that disclosure will interfere with enforcement proceedings; it must rather demonstrate how disclosure will do so." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court concluded that DOJ's initial submissions fell short in that respect, as they lacked "specific information about the impact of the disclosures" or the "individual or entity that is the subject of the ongoing investigation." Id. at 12930. Even after an in camera review of the First Archey Declaration and the Memos themselves, the Court asked an attorney from the Office of Special Counsel to make an on-the-record proffer about the investigation. Having heard this, the Court is now fully convinced that disclosure "could reasonably be expected to interfere" with that ongoing investigation. See 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(A).

---

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/CNN.pdf


these records are eventually going to come out.

aggiehawg said:

---

oysterbayAG said:

---

Can Boasberg's ruling be Appealed ?

---

It's a FOIA request. So yes but procedurally the judge said, "Not now," he didn't say, "Never, ever."

On appeal, the issue then becomes how long it takes for a delay to become denial? Does the public's interest outweigh the temporary delay during a Special Counsel investigation that might be interfered with by releasing them and affect potential future criminal prosecutions??

Does that sound like mostly BS?? Yeah, but that's pretty much how this crap works.

---

Multiple House & Senate committees have requested/demanded to see Comey's memos as well, but I am not aware that any of them or any senior leadership members have ever viewed them -- has anyone outside FBI/DOJ seen them? Some of the memos have been deemed classified, but not all of them.

Oh I agree they will come out. But it has bad optics, was my point. Particularly in light of Meller's BFF status with Comey. It looks like Mueller is running interference for Comey, which he is of course.

Quote:

---

Multiple House & Senate committees have requested/demanded to see Comey's memos as well, but I am not aware that any of them or any senior leadership members have ever viewed them -- has anyone outside FBI/DOJ seen them? Some of the memos have been deemed classified, but not all of them.

---

Colombia law professor Richman has seen four of them.

Is evidence like this that may affect multiple investigations allowed to be retained by one to the exclusion of another? I know we don't yet have a second special counsel, but what about the congressional oversight committees?

My thought was always that as soon as Mueller got in there he had two purposes: investigate trump, and bury any malfeasance by his close friends still at the FBI in the process as much as lawfully could be done.