Sally Yates and Pientka's 302. Something is very hinky here. Yates received a brief summary of Pientka's 302 on the evening of January 24, 2017. She then received the full 302 the morning of January 25, 2017. She then took it with her to meet with Don McGahn, White House Counsel, on January 26, 2017.
All the time while Strzok, Page and McCabe were still editing it and it wasn't formally entered until two weeks later? How did that happen? FBI uses what is called the Sentinel system. Computer software for tracking cases and documents related thereto. If Pientka's 302 was not entered into the Sentinel system until mid February, how did she have it by the 25th of January?
Quote:
Former DAG Sally Yates testified to congress that after the Flynn interview DOJ-National Security Division:
Quote:
"received a detailed readout from the FBI agents who had interviewed Flynn." Yates said she felt "it was important to get this information to the White House as quickly as possible."
Yates is describing the Pientka 302. The Pientka 302 could have been received at the DOJ-NSD later in the evening of January 24th, or perhaps the morning of the 25th. Either is possible because Yates was having meetings about the topic.
In the DOJ motion to dismiss the case against Flynn, the records indicate Yates received a summary of the interview the night of the 24th, and the full detailed record came on the morning of January 25th:
Quote:
The calendar of DOJ-NSD Associate Deputy AG Tashina Gauhar shows meetings with Sally Yates which align with the discussions of the Flynn interview and Yates receiving a summary on the 24th and the detail on the 25th:
Quote:
Together with DOJ-NSD head Mary McCord, Sally Yates used the 302 from Joe Pientka to travel to the White House on January 26th and brief White House counsel Don McGahn about the Flynn interview contrast against the content of the previously captured call between Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Lt. Gen Mike Flynn.
If the FBI search for the original Pientka 302 is mysteriously impossible, perhaps the DOJ should go and get the version that was received by the DOJ-NSD on the evening of January 24th, or morning of January 25th, 2017.
Quote:
Thursday January 26th (afternoon) Sally Yates traveled to the White House along with a senior member of the DOJ's National Security Division, "who was overseeing the matter", that is Mary McCord. This was Yates' first meeting with McGahn in his office, which also acts as a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF).
Yates said she began their meeting by laying out the media accounts and media statements made by Vice President Mike Pence and other high-ranking White House officials about General Flynn's activity "that we knew not to be the truth."
According to Sally Yates testimony, she and Mary McCord presented all the information to McGahn so the White House could take action that they deemed appropriate. When asked by McGahn if Flynn should be fired, Yates answered, "that really wasn't our call."
Yates also said her decision to notify the White House counsel had been discussed "at great length." According to her testimony: "Certainly leading up to our notification on the 26th, it was a topic of a whole lot of discussion in DOJ and with other members of the intel community."
Quote:
Friday January 27th (morning) White House Counsel Don McGahn called Yates in the morning and asked if she could come back to his office.
Friday January 27th (late afternoon) According to her testimony, Sally Yates returned to the White House late that afternoon. One of McGahn's topics discussed was whether Flynn could be prosecuted for his conduct.
Specifically, according to Yates, one of the questions *McGahn asked Yates: "Why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another?" She explained that it "was a whole lot more than that," and reviewed the same issues outlined the prior day.
McGahn then expressed his concern that taking any action might interfere with the FBI investigation of Flynn, and Yates said it wouldn't: "It wouldn't really be fair of us to tell you this and then expect you to sit on your hands," Yates claims to have told McGahn.
McGahn asked if he could look at the underlying evidence of Flynn's conduct, and she said they would work with the FBI over the weekend and "get back with him on Monday morning."
Quote:
Friday January 27th, 2017 (evening) In what appears to be only a few hours later, President Trump is having dinner with FBI Director James Comey where President Trump asked if he was under investigation. Trump was, but to continue the auspices of the ongoing investigation, Comey lied and told him he wasn't.
LINKWere official FBI documents tampered with? Was the software tampered with in the deletion of those records? Felony offenses, BTW. Remember when Van Grack filed a 302 that had "Draft" at the top and then had to explain it to Judge Sullivan? Said it was "inadvertently mislabeled," and a cleaner copy put back into the system. Yet Yate's testimony is that she received what could be termed a draft or brief the evening of the interview but then received the full report (302) the next morning.
Surely she wouldn't have rushed over to the White House on just a draft document that was clearly labeled as such. In fact, she didn't. She waited until the 26th. She had to have the final product, right?
Weird. And all of these conflicting stories about Flynn's 302 means the DOJ would never have been able to obtain a real conviction against him on a false statement charge...ever...including when Flynn originally agreed to the plea deal. Team Mueller would have known it, too.
It was all a sham.
