- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 41,439
- Reaction score
- 10,675
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
What makes it so is that you gave up on defending the op
I provided the counterpoint - there is no evidence
Special Counsel Responds to Judge Sullivan Request for FBI Notes
–
Fails to Submit Agent Pientka January Interview Notes
https://theconservativetreehouse.co...submit-agent-pientka-january-interview-notes/
The curious case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn gets even more curious as Robert Mueller doesn’t deliver the FBI notes (FD-302) from the January 2017 interview of Flynn, as requested by Judge Emmet Sullivan, and instead submits notes from an internal July 19th, 2017, interview with FBI agent Peter Strzok.... The filing by the special counsel team (full pdf below) is a must read.... The special counsel begins their filing by criticizing the approach taken by the Flynn defense in the defense sentencing memo; and attempts to validate/justify their charges against the accused. The details in their response to the judge’s request tell quite a story.... From the second attachment we discover that agent Strzok did all the questioning and agent Pientka took all the notes (screen-grab below). Those FD-302 interview notes, written by Pientka on January 24th, 2017, are part of the what Judge Sullivan ordered to be submitted.... It was previously reported that Strzok was “fired” from the special counsel team in late July after the IG informed Mueller of the Strzok/Page issues. If true, that means Strzok gave this interview and was fired before it became an official FBI/Special Counsel record on August 22nd.... This time-frame deserves further scrutiny.
~~~~~~
Where did agent Joe Pientka’s FD-302 notes go? They are not in the responsive filing despite the judge Emmet Sullivan's request. Instead what we see is that FBI Agent Peter Strzok was interviewed internally by the FBI on July 19th, 2017.
The FD-302 notes of that interview were written on July 20th, 2017 and submitted for entry on August 22nd, 2017. This is around the time that Strzok was working for the special counsel, and Robert Mueller was informed of the strongly biased text messages retrieved by the DOJ inspector general. Mueller has deliberately refused to comply with a Judge Sullivan's order. Should he be arrested for contempt? Definitely!!!
Federal Marshalls should also be instructed to go to Mueller's offices and immediately seize all files.
If judge Sullivan throws the charges out on Prosecutorial Malfeasance, this entire Witch Hunt will be closed by the start of the New Year and a Special Counsel will be assigned to investigate the investigators. Democrats in Congress with certainly not like that and scurry to stop it any way they can.
The legal definition of Obstruction Of Justice:
The crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process the defendant’s…
ANY example of resistance to discovery and possible malfeasance on the part of the FBI bolsters the concept that they are engaged in malfeasance in the OP, goes to show a pattern of behavior.
You aren't familiar with actual evidence are you?
Red:
...And how do we "discover" that? The word "Pientka" isn't even in the documents.
Red:
...And how do we "discover" that? The word "Pientka" isn't even in the documents.
There is no evidence of any such resistance or malfeasance
Sure there is, you were just given two examples, three if you count the OP.
Argument to the stone, Sangha?
the quotes posted do not support the claims in the op
They give evidence of more behavior by the special counsel of prosecutorial abuse.
the quotes posted do not support the claims in the op
Moderator's Warning: |
Argument to the stone fallacy. You have given no evidence,
because I made no claim
Your claim is that the three incidents I have related all show possible abuse. You claim they do not.
No, that is not my claim.
That's unhelpful, present your claim.
I made no claim
Then we are done.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?