Ah that makes perfect sense. I knew it had to do with keeping the discovery private. That makes obvious sense Sarge

But, can he share it with anyone else it might affect? That is what Wictor was saying

GCP12 said:

---

But, can he share it with anyone else it might affect? That is what Wictor was saying

---

No. The proposed order clearly states production of the documents is only for this Defendant, and only for this proceeding (case).

I assume he could come back to the judge if they saw some egregious and ask for an exception?

Deats said:

---

I assume he could come back to the judge if they saw some egregious and ask for an exception?

---

Yes, they could move to modify the Protective Order, but they would need a different reason than "we want it published for the public." I doubt the Court would entertain any "public interest" arguments.

Sarge 91 said:

---

Deats said:

---

I assume he could come back to the judge if they saw some egregious and ask for an exception?

---

Yes, they could move to modify the Protective Order, but they would need a different reason than "we want it published for the public." I doubt the Court would entertain any "public interest" arguments.

---

I know little law but I would assume it would have to relate to another matter before that or another court?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Sounds to me like Mueller is trying to keep that 302 in confidence

---

He can try all he wants to. Doesn't mean in the end none of this will ever see the light of day. It will come out. I view this as more of a last gasp at maintaining some credibility for his investigation.

Dilatory at best.

Let me expand. Mueller has a guilty plea. Flynn waived rights to further discovery of exculpatory evidence in Mueller's possession as of the date of that plea agreement. Mueller has now set that part aside as a hill he won't die on...meaning he knows he has an evidentiary problem in how the plea was obtained and he wants to keep his law license.

Obligatory:

---

True, and quite frankly if this goes from a guilty plea to a stipulated dismissal or a dismissal by the Court, Mueller will have to go public with how the fish jumped off the hook. Otherwise, his office will be viewed as utterly incompetent.

Okay so he is maneuvering within Rule 16(d), Seeking protection from discovery obligations rather than restrictions on disclosure to third parties. I thought maybe the IG has informed him that the 302 is now possible evidense in a separate issue and they want it protected for outside eyes and definitely free from leaks until the other issue is resolved or dropped, male perfect sense what you are saying as well.

I know in some sealed indictment cases in the past at the state level the discovery was treated like attorney eyes only type of thing to lower the risk of damaging other pending cases that were tied to the same evidense. If Mueller found out after the fact that Strzok altered 302s Mueller will firewall himself off from that mess, and Flynn will walk.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Okay so he is maneuvering within Rule 16(d), Seeking protection from discovery obligations rather than restrictions on disclosure to third parties. I thought maybe the IG has informed him that the 302 is now possible evidense in a separate issue and they want it protected for outside eyes and definitely free from leaks until the other issue is resolved or dropped, male perfect sense what you are saying as well.

I know in some sealed indictment cases in the past at the state level the discovery was treated like attorney eyes only type of thing to lower the risk of damaging other pending cases that were tied to the same evidense. If Mueller found out after the fact that Strzok altered 302s Mueller will firewall himself off from that mess, and Flynn will walk.

---

Why wouldn't Mueller have jurisdiction to grand jury Strzok if that's the case?

jjeffers1 said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Okay so he is maneuvering within Rule 16(d), Seeking protection from discovery obligations rather than restrictions on disclosure to third parties. I thought maybe the IG has informed him that the 302 is now possible evidense in a separate issue and they want it protected for outside eyes and definitely free from leaks until the other issue is resolved or dropped, male perfect sense what you are saying as well.

I know in some sealed indictment cases in the past at the state level the discovery was treated like attorney eyes only type of thing to lower the risk of damaging other pending cases that were tied to the same evidense. If Mueller found out after the fact that Strzok altered 302s Mueller will firewall himself off from that mess, and Flynn will walk.

---

Why wouldn't Mueller have jurisdiction to grand jury Strzok if that's the case?

---

Severe conflict of interest since he hired him to be on his team as Special Counsel. He wants to play dumb and distance himself as far away from Strzok as legally possible. Strzok is going to club fed that's about a guarantee. Whether or not he takes the fall alone is a question. If Mueller can bow out of all this and not lose face or his shingle he will be doing good.

Quote:

---

Severe conflict of interest since he hired him to be on his team as Special Counsel. He wants to play dumb and distance himself as far away from Strzok as legally possible. Strzok is going to club fed that's about a guarantee. Whether or not he takes the fall alone is a question. If Mueller can bow out of all this and not lose face or his shingle he will be doing good.

---

Hhmm. You raise an interesting question. Did Strzok testify before the grand jury regarding the 302s in the Flynn matter? Or was it the other FBI agent who was present at the January 24th Flynn interview??

ETA: Remember there was a grand jury in Virginia considering the Flynn matter but Mueller convened a second grand jury in DC and took jurisdiction of the Flynn case to that grand jury.)

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Severe conflict of interest since he hired him to be on his team as Special Counsel. He wants to play dumb and distance himself as far away from Strzok as legally possible. Strzok is going to club fed that's about a guarantee. Whether or not he takes the fall alone is a question. If Mueller can bow out of all this and not lose face or his shingle he will be doing good.

---

Hhmm. You raise an interesting question. Did Strzok testify before the grand jury regarding the 302s in the Flynn matter? Or was it the other FBI agent who was present at the January 24th Flynn interview??

ETA: Remember there was a grand jury in Virginia considering the Flynn matter but Mueller convened a second grand jury in DC and took jurisdiction of the Flynn case to that grand jury.)

---

Strzok has been the lead up until he was dismissed he answered to Preistap when he was strictly counter intelligence, I would think he was the lead on the Flynn interview and more than likely backed up his 302 to the GJ. Yeah that would definitely change a lot of dynamics as far as conflict if he did taint the evidense. Mueller could be in a real pinch

Quote:

---

Yeah that would definitely change a lot of dynamics as far as conflict if he did taint the evidense. Mueller could be in a real pinch

---

Well, I was heading more in the direction that Strzok was the reason Mueller terminated the Virginia GJ and took the matter to the DC GJ to abate the Strzok problem.

And boy-oh-boy! If that happened, Mueller is in a world of crap. Shows he knew the evidence against Flynn was compromised...very early on in his investigation. As in prosecutorial misconduct level world of crap.

Yet another piece of speculation that makes my spidey senses believe Mueller ain't no white hat. Gray hat at best. (By that I mean, he's convinced himself of Flynn's guilt and thinks he can overcome defects in the evidence in the name of justice. Not unusual for career prosecutors.)

Quote:

---

Sounds to me like Mueller is trying to keep that 302 in confidence

---

I forget which 302's Strzok putzed with, but if that putzing is a fact that can be proven, wouldn't that make all 302 forms he touched/handled be suspect?

I believe the Strzok texts came out of the OIG report, and Grassley revealed them.

This is a race between Mueller trying to get something done, and the OIG report being issued, isn't it?

I better get more popcorn.

Quote:

---

I forget which 302's Strzok putzed with, but if that putzing is a fact that can be proven, wouldn't that make all 302 forms he touched/handled be suspect? We don't know which ones he changed...yet. But he was counter-intel, probably didn't testify in that many criminal proceedings because of that.

I believe the Strzok texts came out of the OIG report, and Grassley revealed them.

This is a race between Mueller trying to get something done, and the OIG report being issued, isn't it? Is beginning to look like it.

I better get more popcorn. Always a good idea.

---

SeMgCo87 said:

---

Quote:

---

Sounds to me like Mueller is trying to keep that 302 in confidence

---

I forget which 302's Strzok putzed with, but if that putzing is a fact that can be proven, wouldn't that make all 302 forms he touched/handled be suspect?

I believe the Strzok texts came out of the OIG report, and Grassley revealed them.

This is a race between Mueller trying to get something done, and the OIG report being issued, isn't it?

I better get more popcorn.

---

There is circumstantial evidense currently that Strzok altered the Flynn 302. Strzok was the lead on the interview team of which Flynn was indicted for lying to the FBI as a result of that interview. Back in March Comey testified under oath that he didn't think that Flynn had intentionally lied but was more confused on what was said. Flynn had been to many meet and greets and talked to a lot of people. He failed to disclose he had a phone call with Kislyak and spoke about him holding off on reacting to the 12th hr sanctions Obama put on them and Obama expelling all the Russian Diplomats in DC. I personally don't think Flynn realized at the time his had been caught up and unmasked in a 702 surveillance. He was trapped, because the phone call to Kislyak was perfectly legal and normal. Also there are reports that the FBI agent that was with Strzok also agreed with Comey's testimony.

However when Comey was fired and Mueller was hired, sometime between the time Comey fired and Mueller picked a GJ, the view in the 302 evidently changed because Flynn was indicted and pled what we don't know is there something else, but what is being reported was he lied during the Strzok interview. That's to be determined, and I think the IG report will shed light on all of that.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I know in some sealed indictment cases in the past at the state level the discovery was treated like attorney eyes only type of thing to lower the risk of damaging other pending cases that were tied to the same evidense. If Mueller found out after the fact that Strzok altered 302s Mueller will firewall himself off from that mess, and Flynn will walk.

---

Pretty much. It could get resolved procedurally in a number of ways. But yes, Mueller waived a substantial matter that is involved in any plea deal, further burdens to immediately turn over exculpatory evidence brought to their attention subsequently.

HOWEVER, when the provenance of the evidence they had prior to the plea subsequently becomes tainted in a major way, he has to provide that evidence under ethics rules. If he fought that order from the judge any further, he would be vouching for the credibility and veracity (reasonable belief therein) as to the pre-existing evidence. Very bad ju-ju. Get your ticket ripped a la Nifong in Duke la crosse case.

---

Muller might be a functionary that hot railroaded by Strzok/Page and others. Or he may have been in on it and saw the noose tightening. Either way, he realized he was on a one way train to getting his bar card clipped, canned Strzok/Page, and came clean about what he either previously knew but couldn't disclose or figured out that people were hiding from him. Flynn's conviction is DOA if you ask me.

Hawg, I thought whistle blower laws were different for government employees. I don't know how, but I've read, or heard that in the past.

SeMgCo87 said:

---

Quote:

---

Sounds to me like Mueller is trying to keep that 302 in confidence

---

I believe the Strzok texts came out of the OIG report, and Grassley revealed them.

This is a race between Mueller trying to get something done, and the OIG report being issued, isn't it?

---

I've long thought this, even before I knew what a 302 was. I think Mueller is dirty and has to know of at least some of the FBI corruption (not to mention the whispers of Uranium 1). He needed to be able to cripple the Trump Presidency to protect himself and others well before the IG report comes out.

The assumption is being made that Strzok's altering the 302s has made the evidence tainted, and to substantiate this we have the comments by Comey before the Senate Intel Committee that he didn't believe Flynn had lied...rather he was confused by the questioning and the timing of the telephone calls. Also, conveniently we have not seen any text messages between S & P regarding Flynn. I concur with you in the entirety of this argument.

But let me submit another possibility. It relates to that unknown individual who filed motions per the thread by Falcon; this tweet:

"Evidence illegally obtained" doesn't sound like altered 302s. So I have been thinking about the latter. Remember Sally Yates and her interactions with the WH legal counsel regarding Flynn's lying and being subject to blackmail, etc. in early January 2016? How did Yates know about Flynn's telephone conversations with the Russian Ambassador? Well, one possible way could be: Kislyak was a known Russian spy and all his electronic communications were being monitored, and Flynn was picked up and subsequently unmasked. There are legal maneuvers to follow to unmask him and to investigate him. Herein lies the issue I believe. There needed to be a court order through one of two processes to go after Flynn:

1) Title III: Flynn was engaged in an activity that was potentially criminal, in this case, a violation of the Logan Act. Yates had it in her mind that Flynn was conspiring under the Logan Act to undermine a sitting President's negotiations with a foreign government. (Remember how this was in the news and several prominent journalists and legal experts were writing about it?) Well the latter occurred before it was revealed that Flynn was on the Transition Team, was authorized to call foreign dignitaries, and he even had obtained permission to make such calls; even discussed them with senior Transition Team officials. There was no legal basis to suspect a Logan Act violation. That means Flynn should not have been unmasked and his identity revealed (& leaked to the media, an actual felony). That means the Strzok interview never should have been authorized. But the question is: Was there an appropriate court order authorizing the unmasking and investigation?

2) Title I: Flynn was acting as an agent of a foreign power. No criminal intent is necessary, the purpose of the surveillance warrant related to foreign intelligence. In this case collusion with Russia to rig an election for future nefarious purposes. Did they have a FISA warrant on Flynn? Not that we are aware of. They couldn't use Page's warrant because Flynn never had any contact with Page that we are aware of.

I may not be arguing this correctly, but I believe my major concern is the focus of that tweet: Under what authority did they have to unmask Flynn and investigate him? Remember, this occurred prior to Mueller.

There must be a flaw in my argument because surely Mueller would not have proceeded to indict Flynn if the Strzok interview was unauthorized because of unauthorized surveillance and unmasking.

Quote:

---

They couldn't use Page's warrant because Flynn never had any contact with Page that we are aware of.

---

Couldn't they go "two hops" from page? Meaning Flynn would have only had to talk to someone who talked to page?

fasthorses05 said:

---

Hawg, I thought whistle blower laws were different for government employees. I don't know how, but I've read, or heard that in the past.

---

In terms of intelligence community members, you are correct in that classified material can't be passed on to someone without clearance.

On the Congressional side, that most often leads to the Gang of Eight. Guessing game as to which member will listen and act, which will pretend to listen and act to destroy you and which will ignore you altogether.

Russian Roulette with 8 possible kill shots.

Or go to one's immediate supervisor. Same questions. Will they listen? Will they just get shot down at a higher level? Will your career end as a result?

The Inspector General's office is only as much of a watchdog as the individual in charge. If such person is a staple on the DC cocktail circuit, don't expect a lot.

Whatever Horowitz's inner thoughts and feelings on the subject, I think enough FBI and DOJ employees reached out over the Hillary travesty that he was compelled to act. And then he got into the first layer and realized that there were many more layers to plumb...and they each had a distinct stink to them.

GCP12 said:

---

Quote:

---

They couldn't use Page's warrant because Flynn never had any contact with Page that we are aware of.

---

Couldn't they go "two hops" from page? Meaning Flynn would have only had to talk to someone who talked to page?

---

If that is indeed the case, then now we know that the whole Carter Page FISA warrant application & renewal was bogus/ fraudulent.

GCP12 said:

---

Quote:

---

They couldn't use Page's warrant because Flynn never had any contact with Page that we are aware of.

---

Couldn't they go "two hops" from page? Meaning Flynn would have only had to talk to someone who talked to page?

---

Yes.

Fundamental difference between a 702 and a Title I FISA warrant. EVERYONE who came into contact with Page both before and after the issuance of the warrant could be surveilled! They were in contact with a known spy, according to the government.

See a photo with Page in it?? Those people are subject to unmasking and surveillance thereafter.

Classic reverse targeting.

aggiehawg said:

---

GCP12 said:

---

Quote:

---

They couldn't use Page's warrant because Flynn never had any contact with Page that we are aware of.

---

Couldn't they go "two hops" from page? Meaning Flynn would have only had to talk to someone who talked to page?

---

Yes.

Fundamental difference between a 702 and a Title I FISA warrant. EVERYONE who came into contact with Page both before and after the issuance of the warrant could be surveilled! They were in contact with a known spy, according to the government.

See a photo with Page in it?? Those people are subject to unmasking and surveillance thereafter.

Classic reverse targeting.

---

That is what I thought and this is why the argument that, "they didn't surveil the trump campaign, they only surveilled Page!" is so dumb. The media has completely ignored this part of the warrant.

Who was that lawyer? Can't remember what cases he had seen but wasn't he a govt attorney (fed)?

aggiehawg said:

---

GCP12 said:

---

Quote:

---

They couldn't use Page's warrant because Flynn never had any contact with Page that we are aware of.

---

Couldn't they go "two hops" from page? Meaning Flynn would have only had to talk to someone who talked to page?

---

Yes.

Fundamental difference between a 702 and a Title I FISA warrant. EVERYONE who came into contact with Page both before and after the issuance of the warrant could be surveilled! They were in contact with a known spy, according to the government.

See a photo with Page in it?? Those people are subject to unmasking and surveillance thereafter.

Classic reverse targeting.

---

If Page though dissociated himself from the Campaign in September 2016, they couldn't go forward with the surveillance, could they? Only go retro. that was the problem with Manafort; he departed in July or August 2016.

aggiehawg said:

---

GCP12 said:

---

Quote:

---

They couldn't use Page's warrant because Flynn never had any contact with Page that we are aware of.

---

Couldn't they go "two hops" from page? Meaning Flynn would have only had to talk to someone who talked to page?

---

Yes.

Fundamental difference between a 702 and a Title I FISA warrant. EVERYONE who came into contact with Page both before and after the issuance of the warrant could be surveilled! They were in contact with a known spy, according to the government.

See a photo with Page in it?? Those people are subject to unmasking and surveillance thereafter.

Classic reverse targeting.

---

Exactly

All these disingenuous pundit hacks talking about the Title 1 warrant was on Page after he had left the campaign, is an empty argument, based on exactly what you just described. Anyone within reach of him in any kinda way or received an mail that he may have been cc'd on or anything puts them completely susceptible to being surveilled. They structured FISA to work exactly that way.

I think Flynn was just caught in the 702 because of Kislyak being foreign and possibly was back in Moscow at the time, which is unknown for sure, but Obama did expel all the Russian Diplomats a week prior so he likely was out of the country and wide open under 702, and I'm betting either rice unmasked him or they did it in Samantha Power's name.

Quote:

---

On a Monday night (February 12th, 2018) episode of Tucker Carlson a democrat member of the House Intelligence committee said something interesting that almost everyone missed. Appearing on the show to joust with Tucker, HPSCI member Eric Swalwell stated: "the House Intel Committee has not interviewed a single witness in over a month"....

(interesting discussion)...

...All of the news and information coming forward, including the withdrawal of the request for the Democrat memo, aligns with a very specific fact pattern. Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, James Baker, Bill Priestap, Bruce Ohr and likely Nellie Ohr, have cut some kind of deal with the IG for process leniency in exchange for cooperation....

---

You need to read to see how he comes to this conclusion...too long to summarize. But the above people were all scheduled to testify before the HPSIC in January, and they haven't. And the Nunes Memo contained info about Bruce & Nellie Ohr -- where did that come from?