What we still don’t know about the Michael Flynn case


The Michael Flynn case will soon be over. It began on Jan. 24, 2017, just four days into the Trump administration, when two FBI agents went to the White House to interview Flynn, then the brand new national security adviser. Ignoring protocol, they questioned him about a phone call he had a few weeks before, during the transition, with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. By the end of the year, Flynn had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in that interview.

Now, the Justice Department has moved to drop the charges, and a judge will soon accept that decision. But, before the Flynn matter recedes into history, there is more the public needs to learn about it. Specifically, the public needs to know more details about the way the FBI handled the politically sensitive case. And even more specifically, how do we know what Flynn said in that interview on Jan. 24?

In accordance with usual FBI practice, the interview was not recorded. The agents took notes during the interview and were supposed to return to the office to write up what was said. The write-up is a form known as the FD-302. FBI rules give agents five working days to finalize the document.

If someone is going to be charged with lying to the FBI, it will be on the basis of what is in the 302. There’s no recording, and there are no other witnesses in the room. If an interview subject claims not to have said something, the proof otherwise is the 302 and the agents’ word. So, the 302 is obviously critical if the Justice Department chooses to charge someone for lying in an FBI interview.

That’s why it is important to know the tortured history of the Flynn 302. In the Flynn case, nothing worked as it should have. Nothing. It is believed that one of the two agents who interviewed Flynn, whose identity has, remarkably, never been publicly revealed but has been widely reported to be an agent named Joe Pientka, wrote a 302 shortly after the interview. That recollection, the freshest memory possible, is usually regarded as the most reliable version of what was said in the interview.

Here is the amazing thing: Flynn’s defense has never seen the original 302. Never. Flynn, under enormous pressure from Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI without ever reading what Pientka originally wrote about the interview.

Instead, the FBI almost immediately began editing the Flynn 302. Pientka’s partner in the interview, Peter Strzok, remembered as the agent dismissed from the Mueller special counsel investigation for his anti-Trump texts with extramarital lover (and senior FBI official) Lisa Page, took the lead. On Feb. 10, after the FBI’s five working days limit expired, Strzok did what was apparently a major editing job on the Flynn 302, and he also incorporated edits suggested by Page, who had not been present at the interview. In a text message, Strzok said, “I was trying not to completely re-write the thing so as to save [REDACTED] voice.” It’s thought that the redacted name was Pientka’s. The finished document was dated Feb. 14, 2017, which just happened to be the day after Flynn was fired by the White House.

But wait, there’s more. At the time all this was happening, top FBI officials did not think Flynn would be charged. Then-Director James Comey told Congress exactly that in March 2017. The Flynn case, apparently, was put on the shelf. But then, on May 17, 2017, Mueller was appointed. The Flynn file came down off the shelf as Mueller’s team looked for a way to exert pressure on Flynn to spill whatever he knew about some prosecutors’ preferred theories of collusion.

And then — voila! — came an all-new 302.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

If Gen. Flynn actually committed a crime, why was it necessary ambush the Gen., tell him he needed no representation, to edit, modify then totally rewrite the 302 and lie about what Gen. Flynn did and said? Why, it almost seems as if Obama’s FBI was lynching an innocent man.

Even local police record and or video tape questioning when will the federales come into the 21 century?

Do you honestly believe Donald Trump would ever have agreed to answer questions under oath with a video or audio recorder running? Or that he would have allowed any material witnesses having direct knowledge of anything under investigation to be questioned under similar conditions?

Efforts are presently being made to inflate the importance of the Flynn story into something large enough to dominate the news and distract from the administration’s handling of the national COVID-19 disaster. I don’t think it’s going to work. No one in the nation has been unaffected by COVID-19, which distraction, denial, and media spin will have no effect upon whatsoever.

@Greg: After seeing what they did to Gen. Flynn, he should avoid any cooperation whatsoever. He was not dealing with honest people.


Efforts are presently being made to inflate the importance of the Flynn story into something large enough to dominate the news and distract from the administration’s handling of the national COVID-19 disaster.

The Admin’s handling of the COVID-19 Disaster has been excellent, and all attempts by Dems and owned media to propagate falsehoods have failed.

Flynn’s exoneration indicates the weakening of our own government by the past Administration and their embedded Democrat-loyalists with the aim to commit a coup against a duly elected President.

That’s news.

What are you and your party afraid of?

Curve flattened, we’re supplying vents, drugs, tests, and PPEs to the world…

But yeah, Pence and that photo op!!!

Good one, bro.

Now, the Justice Department has moved to drop the charges, and a judge will soon accept that decision.


Judge Sullivan isn’t letting go of the matter. Today, he put on hold the Justice Department’s move to drop charges against Michael Flynn, saying he expects independent groups and legal experts to argue against the motion.

What part of this being a CRIMINAL case does he not understand?
While an amicus filing might weigh in during an appeal case, there is NO SUCH thing as doing this in a criminal case!
Judges just don’t try to force the DA or DOJ to prosecute against their decision to drop charges!

However, let’s say this travesty sees the light of day.
Put witnesses, like Comey and Strzok under oath to answer questions from Sidney Powell.
That would be “must see” Court TV.