DOJ Adopts a Third Way of Dating Undated Notes
As I noted in this post, the discovery shared with Mike Flynn is rife with inconsistencies. While I think the most egregious decision pertains to the decision to hide William Barnett’s descriptions of what must be descriptions of Brandon Van Grack agreeing with Barnett on the least damning interpretations of Flynn’s lies, the alteration of Peter Strzok’s notes to smear Joe Biden may have the most immediate impact.
That said, I want to note that in the last batch of documents released, DOJ has adopted yet another way to add dates to undated notes.
On notes by one OAG lawyer, DOJ includes the date of a meeting, March 6, 2017, in the redaction.
But DOJ provides no date for another set of notes included with the batch. The date on this note is important because the view of Flynn’s involvement in “collusion” evolved as call records came back to reveal that Flynn had coordinated with Mar-a-Lago.
To sum up then, DOJ has used at least two and probably 3 different methods to write its own date on handwritten notes. Adding post-it notes (in the case of Strzok’s notes), apparently writing the date on the notes itself (in the case of McCabe’s notes), and integrating it into the redaction.
That makes the use of post-it notes on Strzok’s notes all the more problematic.
“ To sum up then, DOJ has used at least two and probably 3 different methods to write its own date on handwritten notes.”
Think about the level of coordination going on here. To see what docs were best to alter and for Powell to know to enter them, in an attempt to make her arguments create a propaganda campaign pro Flynn-Trump and a second that smears both Biden and the Mueller team, is stunning – in a bad way.
Seriously. Your posts should be going viral.
The only one capable of coordinating such activities would be AG Barr himself, between the access to info and the authority he has to direct investigations. From the very first “summary” of the Mueller report he has made it clear that for DJT he’ll cover anything up. No one else in DOJ could do this in as many places without coming to Barr’s attention. He needs to go to jail.
I don’t think that is the complete picture. I will say June 6th, 2019 – when Flynn fired his lawyers – becomes a more curious date for me as well as the time period to June 12th when he hires his new lawyer.
From EW’s November 2019 post and Oct 1, 2019 tweet and today’s tweet, Powells letter dated June 6, 2019 to AG Barr. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.122.2.pdf
https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/07/27/hjc-should-ask-bill-barr-why-it-would-do-irreparable-harm-if-he-had-to-explain-his-actions-in-the-flynn-case/
On a five point scale, with five being the neediest, how badly does Barr need to prevent the “falsified” [or ‘garbled’] records from being entered into evidence in a United States Court?
Or do the garbled records all change back into pumpkins the minute a federal judge reads them?
Powell’s reaction in court currently is proving EW’s posts today are shining light and making people become unhinged.
This whole hearing from Powell and DOJ is a “firehose of falsehoods” propaganda campaign. It is like they were handed a ticklist or propaganda campaign strategy to accomplish today.
Until there is a transcript, TPM carried a live blog as well. It’s clear how political the entire WH and DOJ has been, and it would be interesting to examine Powell’s letter to Barr more closely, since she tap danced around exactly when she started representing Flynn. On its face, the timing suggests that Powell didn’t have standing to intervene as Flynn’s attorney since nothing had been sent out as notice. I don’t know if there is a serious issue with that timing, since Flynn could fire and hire at any time and nothing had needed attorney communication in the case until after the letter to Barr.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/live-blog/courtroom-showdown-doj-to-defend-decision-to-drop-charges-against-trump-buddy-flynn
That is kind of true, kind of not. Once lead atty of record on a criminal case, you can only leave or join with permission of the court. In fact, I think Powell got tripped up on that in the first instance.
If the post-its are Powell’s, that would explain why it looks different from the DOJ dating methods?
Powell should have initialed them, then, so they wouldn’t be confused with DOJ’s dates.
Should have. If it was DOJ they didn’t do it by the book either.
No, an atty should not put any mark on any document to be submitted to the court. You can make the explanation in a separate document.
Which leads up to a question I have: who actually possesses and has access to the original documents, not the copies of the original? Can those be admitted as evidence instead of copies?
Can be, and arguably should be as it is the best evidence. No idear who possesses same.
I think that is right. Even if the original is not marked and placed into evidence, it should be produced so that the court can verify the accuracy of the substituted copy.
Given Trump’s problems with dating, why is anyone surprised that his DOJ has the same problem?
Does Barr have a problem?
DOJ has to certify “that materials “were true and accurate”
The certification should take less than an hour, no.
What legal maneuver can Barr use to get a round this?
A fucking “clerical” error