Techno Fog put together an interesting (fascinating, disconcerting, troubling, crazy) thread about the DOJ’s response to Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell.
DOJ has filed its Response to @SidneyPowell1 motion to compel production of documents in the Flynn case:https://t.co/L82Di4IZFh pic.twitter.com/8FfnlI6Le7
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 1, 2019
DOJ: There were no material changes made after 2/10/17 to the Flynn 302.
These blue-lined insertions [e.g. Russian Ambassador describing a Russian response] are material.
CC @KerriKupecDOJ pic.twitter.com/gcZErPLPtq
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 1, 2019
Ya’ don’t say.
This curious DOJ argument:
"Even if an earlier draft of the [302] once existed, there is no reason to believe it would materially differ" from the agents' notes.
Even if the original – and now disappeared – 302 "once existed"?? ? pic.twitter.com/U9WlBxoDqq
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 1, 2019
Once existed.
That sort of implies it did exist, yes? No?
Man, this tinfoil gets itchy on your head after a while.
DOJ position: Strzok's notes were taken contemporaneously during the interview.
Not buying it. Strzok wrote a book; his notes are way to clean (and lack shorthand) to be taken during the interview.
Compare Strzok vs Pientka notes for reference… pic.twitter.com/OefjZQKfHF
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 1, 2019
So in other words (we think), the DOJ is denying claims Strzok edited his notes after the fact.
Even though when you read through this thread and the one Undercover Huber put together, it just doesn’t add up.
If you’re confused AF don’t feel bad, this stuff reads like stereo instructions written backward in Mandarin by someone who was being chased while writing them. Luckily, The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland wrote a separate thread that shed a little more light on what is going on here.
As @Techno_Fog linked earlier, Gov't filed surreply in Flynn's case. He also hits some main factual issues. And @SidneyPowell1 sur-surreply will likely nail those and other factual issue as well as three other huge issues. 1/
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) November 1, 2019
Get some popcorn.
2/ First, the gov't completely fails to explain how Flynn's statements were material. They knew what Flynn said from the tapes AND in fact were gloating when Flynn denied it right after the meeting. The gov't analysis in this regard is completely lacking. pic.twitter.com/RIxy25lRKE
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) November 1, 2019
See Techno’s tweet with the supposedly ‘immaterial’ statements in blue.
3/ Second, the gov't's analysis of the conflict of interest speaks of Flynn's first attorney as having told gov't Flynn waived the conflict. BUT some conflicts cannot be waived and the one involving Flynn appears to be one of those.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) November 1, 2019
4/ Finally, gov't ignores fact that Sullivan's standing order said if it believes something is immaterial, it must present to court to decide.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) November 1, 2019
So the DOJ doesn’t get to just decide something is ‘immaterial’.
Who knew?
5/5 And one interesting tidbit: The "lock in" in a chargeable way, didn't refer to Flynn. So whom else was the gov't trying to set up??? END
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) November 1, 2019
RIGHT?!
Something stinks in Denmark, folks.
-Follow Sam J. on Twitter @politibunny–
Related:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member