Posts

Ockham’s Cut: How the Andrew McCabe Notes Were Doctored

/87 Comments/in , , /by

Some weeks ago, I asked for help understanding the irregularities of the Andrew McCabe notes. Among other observations, two people showed that the notes had been created in layers, with the redaction of the protective order footnote seemingly added twice. Since then, longtime friend of the site “William Ockham” has done more analysis (he was the tech expert identified in the second post), and determined that the file must have been made as part of a multi-step process. I share his analysis here. The italics, including the bracket, are mine, the bold is his.

Here’s what I can say about the McCabe notes. The easiest way to explain this is to think about the ancestral tree of the images that are embedded in the documents we have. It all starts with the original page from McCabe’s notes (Generation 0).

Someone scanned that page to create an unredacted image file (Gen 1).

That image was printed (Gen 2). {From a technical point of view, this is what happens when a page is copied on a modern copy machine. Based on the evidence I have, I’m fairly sure that a digital image of the original page must exist. If not, it sucks to be the FBI.)

An analog redaction (probably with a black Sharpie or similar instrument) was applied. I strongly suspect that the date was added to the same physical page before it was rescanned. It’s possible, although I consider it very unlikely, that the date was added after the physical page was rescanned. These original redactions aren’t totally black the way they would be if done with the DoJ’s redaction software. In any event, this rescanned image is Gen 3.

That physical page with the date was scanned to an image file (Gen 4).

At this point, a PDF file  that will become 170510-mccabe-notes-jensen-200924.pdf is created by embedding the Gen 4 image and saving the file as a PDF. Then, a separate process adds the words “SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER” and “DOJSCO – 700023502” to the metadata inside the file and draws the words in a font called “Arial Black” at the bottom of that page and the file is saved again. ***I am 100% certain that a PDF was created exactly like I describe here***

Update from Ockham to describe how the redaction shows up in the DOJ footnote:

A PDF file is really a software program that has instructions for rendering one or more pages. An image similar to the one above [Gen 4] was turned into a PDF file which contained one set of instructions:

  1. Store about 1 megabyte of compressed data.
  2. Take that data and render an image by interpreting the data as an 8bit per pixel grayscale image 1710 pixels wide by 2196 pixels high (at normal 96 pixels per inch, 17.81 in by 22.87 in, so obviously scanned at a much higher resolution)
  3. Scale that image so it takes up an entire 8 ½ by 11 page
  4. Render the image

Then, an automated process adds the footer. The part of the instructions for rendering the Bates number are still in the document and look like this:

Operation Description Operands
Dictionary E.g.: /Name << … >> /Artifact<</Contents (DOJSCO – 700023502)/Subtype /BatesN /Type /Pagination >>
BDC (PDF 1.2) Begin marked-content sequence with property list
q Save graphics state
cm Concatenate matrix to current transformation matrix 1001458.234985434.7999268
gs (PDF 1.2) Set parameters from graphics state parameter dictionary /GS0
Tr Set text rendering mode 0
Tf Set text font and size /T1_031.5 [This is a pointer to a font name and size, Arial Black – 18PT]
Do Invoke named XObject /Fm0 [This is a pointer to the actual text and location to render it
Q Restore graphics state
EMC (PDF 1.2) End marked-content sequence

Originally, there would have been a similar set of instructions for the “SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER” part as well. They would have looked almost the same except for the “Artifact” operands, the actual text, and the positioning instruction.

Now, here’s the really important part. The DoJ redaction software presents the rendered PDF file to the end user. However, it operates on the actual PDF by rewriting the instructions. When the user drew the rectangle around the words “SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER”, the redaction software has to find every instruction in the PDF that made changes to the pixels within the coordinates of the rectangle. The redaction software sees two “layers” of instructions that affect the rectangle, the text writing instructions and the image itself. The redaction software removes all the instructions for writing the text and replaces those instructions with instructions to draw a black box in the same place. Then, it also blacks out the pixels in the image itself. It has to do both of those things to ensure that it has removed all of the redacted information, even though in this case it didn’t really need to do both.

Then someone at the DoJ opens the PDF and redacts the words “SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER” from the page. The redaction does all of the following things:

  • It removes the metadata entry with the words “SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER”,
  • It removes the commands that draw the words.
  • It replaces those commands with commands that draw a black rectangle the same size as the rendered words.
  • It replaces the pixels in the Gen 4 image that correspond to the area of the image that the words were drawn on top of with solid black pixels.

Those last two steps create two very slightly offset redaction boxes. The slight offset is caused by errors caused by using floating point math to draw the same shape in two different coordinate systems. Step 4 creates an image which I’ll call Gen 5 which can be extracted from 170510-mccabe-notes-jensen-200924.pdf.

When someone notices that this file and the Strzok notes have been altered, Judge Sullivan asks for the unaltered versions.  Jocelyn Ballantine has a problem. There’s no redacted version of McCabe’s notes without the added date. She can’t use the DoJ’s redaction software because that would look even worse (a big black rectangle where the date was added).  What’s a stressed out assistant US Attorney to do? Here’s what she did. She took the unredacted PDF file I mentioned above and converted it to an image. Then she used image editing software to remove the date, which made that rectangle of white pixels. She fires up Microsoft Word on her DoJ work computer and starts creating a new document (likely from a template designed creating exhibit files). The first page just says Exhibit A and on the second page (which has all margins set to 0) she pastes in the image she just created, scaled to fit exactly on the page. Without saving the Word file, she prints the document (using the Adobe Distiller print driver) to PDF and submits the printed file as the supposedly unaltered McCabe notes. [Gen 6]

It seems like these steps look like this:

Gen 0: FBI had or has McCabe’s original notes presumably stored with his other documents.

Gen 1:  Someone took the notes from there and scanned them, presumably to share with other investigators.

Gen 2: Someone printed out Gen 1 and made notes and otherwise altered them. This is the stage at which the government claims someone put a sticky note with a date on the notes, but it appears they just wrote the date on the notes themselves. If everything had been operating normally, however, when Judge Sullivan asked for unaltered copies of the documents, they could have used the Gen 1 copy to resubmit. They didn’t do so, which suggests the chain of custody may have already been suspect. Some possible explanations for that are that Jeffrey Jensen’s team received the document from either DOJ IG or John Durham’s investigation, not directly from the FBI files. That wouldn’t be suspect from the standpoint of DOJ internal workings, but it would be proof that DOJ knew the documents they relied on in their motion to dismiss had already been reviewed by Michael Horowitz or Durham’s teams, and found not to sustain the conspiracies that Billy Barr needed them to sustain to throw out Flynn’s prosecution (or that DOJ claimed they sustained in the motion to dismiss).

Gen 3: I think Ockham is viewing the creation of the image file in two steps. First, a scan of the file with the note written on it is made, which is Gen 3.

Gen 4: Then, probably before the file is handed off to Jocelyn Ballantine to “share” with Mike Flynn’s team (I’m scare-quoting because I suspect there may have been a back channel as well), the redaction is created for where the protective order stamp would go. Here’s what Gen 4 would have looked like:

Gen 5: Gen 4 is then prepared as an exhibit would normally be, by putting it into a PDF and adding the Bates number and protective order stamp, then redacted the latter. Reminder: The protective order footer was also redacted from (at least) the two altered Strzok notes, as I show here.

Gen 6: When Peter Strzok and McCabe tell Sullivan that their notes have had dates added, DOJ re-releases the notes such that the notes are no longer added but the redacted footnote is. As Ockham notes (and as I think everyone who looked closely at this agrees) the date is not removed by taking off a post-it. Instead, it is whited out digitally, leaving a clear mark in the exhibit.

One reason this is so interesting — besides providing more proof that DOJ went to some lengths to make sure a version of these notes did not include the protective order, freeing Sidney Powell to share it with Jenna Ellis and whomever else she wanted, so they could prepare campaign attacks from it — is that DOJ refused to say who added the date to McCabe’s notes. As I noted in my own discussion here, one possible explanation why DOJ kept redacting stuff rather than going back to the original (other than having to submit the file for formal declassification and the post-it hiding other parts of the document) is because the chain of custody itself would undermine the claims DOJ has made in the motion to dismiss, by making it clear that someone had already reviewed this document and found no criminal intent in the document.

The other problem with this multi-generation alteration of Andrew McCabe’s notes is, if anyone asks, it is going to be very difficult for anyone involved to disclaim knowledge that these documents were altered. Mind you, Ballantine already has problems on that front: I emailed her to note that the FBI version of Bill Barnett’s “302” she shared redacted information that was material to Judge Sullivan’s analysis, the positive comments that Barnett had for Brandon Van Grack. So if and when Sullivan asks her why DOJ hid that material information from him, she will not be able to claim she didn’t know. Then there’s her false claim — which both Strzok and McCabe’s lawyers have already disproved — that the lawyers affirmed that no other changes had been made to the notes.

But if this file was prepared as Ockham describes, then both DOJ and FBI will have a tough time claiming they didn’t know they were materially altering documents before submitting them to Judge Sullivan’s court.

Updated with some corrections from Ockham.

The Last Time Billy Barr Ordered a Politicized Investigation, DOJ Altered Documents for Public Consumption

/117 Comments/in , , /by

It is a fact that someone (or someones) who were part of the Jeffrey Jensen review of the Mike Flynn prosecution altered documents for public consumption. That is not speculation. It is not hyperbole. It is a fact, one that other outlets had better start replicating and enhancing if they want to prevent Barr’s green light on investigations into election irregularities, announced last night, from doing the same.

At a minimum, DOJ removed protective order footers from a set of documents shared with Sidney Powell on September 23, in advance of the first debate.

The altered January 5, 2017 Strzok notes, altered to suggest a January 5, 2017 meeting might have happened on January 4, 2017, without the footer:

The realtered January 5, 2017 Strzok notes, with the footer:

The second set of Strzok notes (originally altered to read March 28), without the footer:

The second set of Strzok notes, with the footer.

The altered McCabe notes, altered to include a date, with the footer redacted out:

The realtered McCabe notes, with the footer unredacted:

The two other documents released that day, a newly repackaged set of Page-Strzok texts (with newly released personal information that constitutes a new violation of the Privacy Act) that DOJ now claims not to have had a purpose to release and a set of FBI analyst texts the identities of which DOJ seems very concerned about hiding, also lacked protective order footnotes.

The three documents (above) subsequently released with the protective order replaced all had dates added to the initially altered document, a misleading date in at least the case of Peter Strzok’s January 5, 2017 notes and misleading redactions used to suggest something false about the date added to the McCabe notes. DOJ claims those added dates were inadvertent, but the fact they happened with documents that had otherwise been altered (and on a document, the Strzok January 5, 2017 notes, that had already been released once without the date) makes that claim highly unlikely. When prosecutor Jocelyn Ballantine submitted a filing admitting that the dates had been altered, she falsely claimed that Strzok and McCabe’s lawyers had confirmed nothing else was altered.

There are several other problems with the altered set of Andrew McCabe notes (including that notes about prep for the Global Threats Hearing got released with no declassification stamp), problems that merit more attention from experts.

But those aren’t the only pieces of evidence that the Jeffrey Jensen investigation evolved from inventing an excuse to blow up the Flynn prosecution into an opportunity to set up campaign attacks for the President. Pro-Trump FBI Agent Bill Barnett gave an interview that was materially inconsistent with his actions during the Flynn investigation (and that claimed to be unaware of key pieces of evidence against Flynn). When DOJ released it, they redacted it in such a way as to hide complimentary comments from Barnett about Brandon Van Grack that would have completely undermined DOJ’s claimed reasons to throw out Flynn’s prosecution.

There are more signs of irregularities with this “investigation.” But this list by itself proves that DOJ, in an investigation personally ordered up by Billy Barr, used the “investigation” to package up propaganda to help Donald Trump. The package even seems to have served to tee up an attack Trump made on Joe Biden in the first debate.

As noted, last night Barr authorized what had previously been forbidden for over forty years, DOJ’s conduct of investigations into claims of irregularities ginned up by the very same lawyers — Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani — who invented the complaints about the Flynn prosecution. One of Barr’s investigations has already altered official documents to sustain false claims. That means there’s reason to believe he would do it again, to serve the same cause. Indeed, Trump’s election loss gives Barr’s a greater incentive to repeat the process, to ensure he is not replaced by someone who would treat these alterations as a crime.

A Bill Barr politicized investigation altered documents to serve propaganda in the past. We should assume it will happen again.

Lindsey Graham Responds to News of Potential Ongoing Crime by Promising to Ignore It

/47 Comments/in , /by

As I have been laying out, there is growing evidence that when DOJ added dates (a misleadingly incorrect one in at least one case) to Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe notes, they altered the documents in some other ways. At the very least, they redacted protection order footers in the first documents shared with Sidney Powell, but there appear to be other irregularities in the McCabe notes, irregularities that may be far more serious.

And that’s before you get to DOJ’s claims that:

  • They didn’t know the date of the January 5, 2017 meeting (even though documents in the docket make that date clear)
  • The Bill Barnett “report” was a 302
  • Lawyers for Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe had affirmed there were no (other) alterations to their clients’ notes

Those are all false, and the last one is fairly demonstrably maliciously false.

I’ve been trying to chase down places where original versions of the Andrew McCabe notes might exist, to compare with what got released in the docket. In addition to DOJ IG (which might have the notes in investigative files relating to the Carter Page investigation), I figured the Senate Judiciary Committee should have a copy.

After all, McCabe had been scheduled to testify on October 6, before he canceled on account of the GOP COVID cluster.

So I called the committee spox, Taylor Reidy, asking if they had copies of McCabe’s notes, since I wanted to use them to see whether FBI had committed a crime. She (credibly) claimed not to know about DOJ altering official documents, given the mad rush to confirm Amy Coney Barrett. So I sent her information to help her out.

Thanks for seeing if you can chase down the copies of these documents the Committee has received.

Basically, in some documents shared with Sidney Powell and then loaded to the docket in the Mike Flynn case, FBI had added (incorrect, in at least one case) dates to some Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe notes, which they subsequently admitted to the court, stating that the alteration was unintentional.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/07/doj-altered-flynn-document-427280

But it’s now clear that the FBI also removed the “protection order” footers in those documents as well (and have restored them in the re-altered documents).

There are a number of other irregularities with the McCabe notes, including that it doesn’t have a declassification stamp, even though the notes talk about Worldwide Threats hearing prep.

So I’m wondering if SJC could release the version of the notes the Committee received so we can understand what those notes originally looked like.

As I know from following the Crossfire Hurricane investigation closely, I’m know the Committee takes alterations of official documents very seriously.

I appreciate any help you can offer to clarify why these documents were altered.

I got no answer yesterday. I pinged her again today, mentioning that I thought Lindsey Graham’s disinterest in what might be a crime in progress newsworthy:

I’m circling back for comment on this.

I’m considering a post reporting on Chairman Graham’s disinterest in evidence that FBI has tampered with evidence to help Mike Flynn and would post it later today.

Thanks in advance.

Reidy responded to my question about DOJ’s current actions by stating that her boss is totally committed to continuing to review events that happened four years ago.

Thanks for your patience, Marcy.

The matter relates to pending litigation and is not something the committee would have access to.

Graham continues to pursue oversight related to the FBI’s handling of Crossfire Hurricane.

And while I followed up to clarify the seemingly shocking detail — that SJC intended to call McCabe as a witness without obtaining any of his records! — it appears to be the case that DOJ didn’t even share those documents with SJC.

I tried again, noting that she hadn’t answered the question I asked.

To clarify, even though you had prepared to have Andrew McCabe testify this month, you intended to do so without his records?

Also, would you like to issue a statement about FBI’s altering documents in the month of September 2020, which is entirely unrelated to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and what I asked about? Or does Chairman Graham not intend to exercise oversight over ongoing misconduct happening right now? To clarify, because this will be clear in any post, I’m asking whether Chairman Graham, having been informed of a potential crime happening as we speak on a matter that he has direct oversight over, is going to do anything about it?

I’ve had no response, from which I guess it is fair to conclude that former JAG Officer Lindsey Graham is going to do nothing about what might be a crime in progress.

FBI, for what it’s worth, yesterday referred my questions about why Executive Assistant Director John Brown certified what was almost certainly a classified document for release that lacked any declassification stamp as authentic to DC’s US Attorney’s Office.

I asked again if FBI had comment about the further alterations exhibited in the McCabe document, but got no answer there, either (I’m wondering what will happen if I report that FBI is doctoring documents to the FBI tip line).

It’s really weird that all these people who are supposed to guard the rule of law in this country are so disinterested in what might be a crime in progress.

Update: After I posted, the FBI reiterated that they still want me to ask DOJ why their EAD certified what appears to be a formerly classified document that lacks a declassification stamp.

We are still referring you to DOJ since this pertains to ongoing litigation.

I’m asking again for reference to what policies in question EAD Brown just certified to.

More Reason to Question the Government’s Treatment of Andrew McCabe’s Notes

/9 Comments/in , /by

In this post, I noted that the three sets of Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe notes to which FBI added dates (in at least one case, inaccurate dates) had had their Protective Order footers redacted, suggesting someone packaged them up for circulation (probably with two other documents shared that same day, one of which was a frivolous repackaging of Strzok’s texts with Lisa Page).

In this post, I pointed out several other irregularities with McCabe’s notes: that there’s an artifact in the left margin by one of the redactions (multiple people have said this is one or two post-it notes which left a shadow and covered up the margin) and there’s no declassification stamp.

Two more readers of the site have provided further reason to question FBI’s treatment of Andrew McCabe’s notes.

First, a tech expert separated out the objects in the PDF with the altered date, which shows what the original scan of McCabe’s notes looks like. It looks like this:

That is, the redaction that covered up where the footer would say, “SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER,” was in the first scan of the document, even though the footer would be applied later (the Bates stamp and the Protective Order footer show up as metadata in the PDF).

Meanwhile, Cannonfire did some more toying with the document in PhotoShop, and shows that the Bates stamp footer and the redaction are of a different quality than everything else on the page.

It makes sense that the Bates stamp footer is–those are added at a later stage to the document along with the Protective Order stamp.

But for this document to have been produced in this way, the Protective Order stamp would have had to have been redacted out at a later date.

Both of those details suggest that the footer was redacted at a later date.

The Altered Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok Documents Were Packaged for Circulation

/23 Comments/in , /by

On September 23, 2020, prosecutor Jocelyn Ballantine sent five documents to Sidney Powell:

  • The altered January 5, 2017 Strzok notes
  • The second set of altered Strzok notes
  • The altered Andrew McCabe notes
  • Texts between FBI analysts
  • A new set of Strzok-Page texts, which included new Privacy Act violations

The letter Ballantine sent accompanying those documents is dated September 23, but it wasn’t loaded to the docket until September 28. Like all her discovery letters, the version of the letter uploaded to the docket informs Powell that, “These materials are covered by the Protective Order entered by the Court on February 21, 2018.”

In her letter providing realtered sets of the notes, the only change Ballantine described to the documents pertained to the removal of the sticky notes — which weren’t actually removed, but instead whited out electronically (and probably weren’t sticky notes in McCabe’s case at all).

But there was another change made to all of them: the “subject to protective order” footnote was restored to the documents.

The altered January 5, 2017 Strzok notes, without the footer:

The realtered January 5, 2017 Strzok notes, with the footer:

The second set of Strzok notes (originally altered to read March 28), without the footer:

The second set of Strzok notes, with the footer.

The altered McCabe notes, with the footer redacted out:

The realtered McCabe notes, with the footer unredacted:

Notably, there’s no declassification stamp on McCabe’s notes.

The Page-Strzok notes don’t have a protective order footer. Nor do the FBI analyst texts.

So all the documents sent to Sidney Powell on September 23 had no protective order stamp, and in the case of McCabe’s notes, they had the protective order stamp covered over.

The altered notes have all since been realtered, and rather than trying to certify the Strzok-Page texts, in today’s declaration, Ballantine just told Judge Emmet Sullivan DOJ wasn’t relying on them — no blood no foul. Presumably, there’s something fishy with the FBI analyst texts, because there’s something fishy with all of these documents.

But given the fact that the protective order footer was redacted in the McCabe notes, it cannot be accidental. These documents — the documents with the “inadvertent” alterations — also were all packaged up such that if Sidney Powell shared them (say, with the President’s campaign lawyer), Powell could claim these were somehow exempt.

DOJ Falsely Claimed that McCabe and Strzok Confirmed that the Content of Their Notes Was Not Altered

/27 Comments/in , /by

I wrote a really long post cataloging all the problems with DOJ’s declaration of authenticity in the Mike Flynn case.

But the most important paragraph in the declaration has an astounding claim: that DOJ — in a declaration signed by Jocelyn Ballantine — affirmed that lawyers for both Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe had confirmed that their clients’ notes were not altered. [Emphasis original]

The government acknowledges its obligation to produce true and accurate copies of documents. The government has fully admitted its administrative error with respect to the failure to remove three reviewer sticky notes containing estimated date notations affixed to three pages of undated notes (two belonging to former Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok, and one page belonging to former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe) prior to their disclosure. These dates were derived from surrounding pages’ dates in order to aid secondary reviewers. These three sticky notes were inadvertently not removed when the relevant documents were scanned by the FBI for production in discovery. See ECF 259. The government reiterates, however, that the content of those exhibits was not altered in any way, as confirmed by attorneys for both former FBI employees.

But the declaration and related filings only reflects communication from Aitan Goelman, Strzok’s lawyer.

Indeed, in the letter that McCabe’s lawyer sent to the court on October 2, he pointedly said that DOJ had not asked him to confirm the accuracy of its claims about the notes before filing them.

So I asked Michael Bromwich, McCabe’s lawyer, if he agrees with the assertion Ballantine made in yesterday’s filing. He told me he spoke with Ballantine a few weeks ago and doesn’t recall any such discussion.

But when he got an email from her on Sunday at 4PM, asking for him to let her know by 2PM Monday if her transcription was inaccurate, he pointedly declined to do so.

I have spoken with Mr. McCabe and he declines to provide you with any information in response to your request.

He believes DOJ’s conduct in this case is a shocking betrayal of the traditions of the Department of the Justice and undermines the rule of law that he spent his career defending and upholding. If you share with the Court our decision not to provide you with assistance, we ask that you share the reason.

We would of course respond to any request that comes directly from the Court.

That is, Ballantine claimed that Bromwich had affirmatively confirmed this content.

But Bromwich very pointedly refused to do so.

For what it’s worth, I think the content has not been altered, but the redactions do misrepresent the notes. But according to Bromwich, Ballantine made that claim even though he had pointedly refused to confirm the accuracy of the notes or transcription.

Update: And now Strzok says that they didn’t confirm the content either.

That’s more problematic in his case, because there are so many more transcripts.

Update: The same thing happened with Strzok (though his lawyer did alert Ballantine to her docket/exhibit problems I noted in this post).

Ballantine emailed Goelman at 4:05 on Sunday with the same request. He responded at 3:38 PM on Monday, telling her they could not confirm authenticity of these notes without the originals. He also noted that Ken Kohl misrepresented the meaning of one of Strzok’s texts in the hearing before Judge Sullivan.

Sorry not to get back to you until now.  We have looked at the attachments to the email you sent yesterday (Sunday) afternoon.  We are unable to certify the authenticity of all of the attachments or the accuracy of the transcriptions.  To do so, we would need both more time and access to the original notes, particularly given that U.S. Attorney Jensen’s team has already been caught altering Pete’s notes in two instances.  However, we do want to call your attention to the fact that Exhibit 198-11 is mislabeled, and that these notes are not the notes of Pete “and another agent” taken during the Flynn interview.

Additionally, we want to register our objection to AUSA Ken Kohl’s material misstatements to Judge Sullivan during the September 29, 2020, 2020, telephonic hearing, during which Mr. Kohl inaccurately represented that Pete viewed himself as an “insurance policy” against President Trump’s election.

So basically both of them refused to affirm that the notes were authentic. But she made the claim anyway.

Shorter DOJ: We Made Shit Up … Please Free Mike Flynn

/24 Comments/in , , /by

Congratulations to the lawyers who worked all weekend to meet Judge Emmet Sullivan’s deadline to certify all the documents (with just eight explicit caveats and then another slew built in) submitted in the Mike Flynn motion to dismiss proceeding. I doubted you could pull it off time-wise.

In your rush you seem to have provided Judge Sullivan even more evidence that nothing about this proceeding is normal. Indeed, some of this submission almost makes Sidney Powell’s submissions look tidy by comparison.

The slew of caveats

Effectively, the certification (signed by Jocelyn Ballantine, with individual declarations signed by three others, in part because there are things that Ballantine almost certainly knows are inaccurate or include material omissions), says there have been no material alterations to the documents submitted in the proceeding except for:

  1. Redactions done in the name of classification, law enforcement sensitive, or privacy that serve to hide material information pertaining to Brandon Van Grack, Bill Barnett, and the reason a third document was altered by adding a date (at a minimum)
  2. A set of texts where “irrelevant information and excess metadata” was excluded and an error introduced in the process of creating a table showing “corrected date, corrected time,” which raises far more questions about the provenance of the document
  3. The Bill Barnett interview report that DOJ had submitted to Sullivan as “a 302” is instead a “report” that is not being certified in normal fashion, in part, because DOJ is hiding redactions that withhold material information about Brandon Van Grack
  4. An NSL declaration done by Jocelyn Ballantine that may hide the existence of at least one earlier financial NSL served on Mike Flynn that WDMO didn’t ask her to summarize
  5. A new set of text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page that DOJ admits they’re not relying on (but nevertheless committed an additional Privacy Act violation in releasing), which was not redacted to hide personal information
  6. Three documents submitted by Sidney Powell that DOJ won’t certify (two of which, however, are probably more accurate than what DOJ has submitted)
  7. “Unintelligible” markings in transcripts of notes where DOJ was unsuccessful at getting the author or their lawyer to conduct a last minute review over a matter of hours on a Sunday (DOJ does not specify how many of their transcripts this includes); some of these appear significant
  8. Inconsistencies on how redactions and unintelligible text were marked in transcriptions which, in some cases, is affirmatively misleading
  9. Lots of documents where the certification doesn’t list the Bates numbers, with some hilarious results
  10. Inconsistencies on whether DOJ certifies all copies of a particular document that got submitted multiple times, which in one case would raise questions about the production of these documents
  11. An admission that, for some reason, the motion to dismiss didn’t rely on the final 302 of Flynn’s January 24, 2017 interview
  12. A new inaccurate date, ironically describing a Kevin Clinesmith email
  13. A claim that both Strzok and McCabe’s lawyers have confirmed their clients’ notes were not altered, but only Strzok’s lawyer is quoted

For all of the exhibits that accompanied the motion to dismiss, DOJ uses the docket number, not the exhibit number, even though Sullivan is supposed to be ruling on that MTD that uses exhibit numbers. That’ll make it a lot harder for him to use the transcriptions, which otherwise would make it more obvious that DOJ misrepresented what some of these documents say, including their “smoking gun,” the Bill Priestap notes.

In addition, in a lot of the documents with problems (including all undated notes to which dates were added), DOJ doesn’t include Bates numbers in its certification, even though it does elsewhere. There’s good reason for this. In the case of the re-altered altered documents, those new exhibits should have new Bates stamps, but don’t. In other cases, DOJ submitted multiple versions of the same document with different Bates stamps, in others, when they resubmitted exhibits they retained the Bates stamp. That’s … not a legal process reflecting any regularity.

DOJ still pretends to have no fucking clue about documents they relied on in the motion to dismiss

Perhaps the most pathetic (and by that I mean, I would hate to be the lawyer banking my bar membership on this ploy) detail in this package is the way they try to deal with the fact they’ve made false misrepresentations about Strzok’s January 5, 2017 notes. In one place in the table of documents, they describe the date of the notes this way:

In another, they describe it — the very same notes, just repackaged so they could submit them with the wrong date — this way:

Above both transcriptions, DOJ includes the following note.

I understand why DOJ is still claiming to be unsure about the date. It’s an attempt to minimize the damage from previously providing false dates so as to avoid being punished for knowing misrepresentations in their alterations (they’re still at risk though, because they’re incorrect dates kept changing). But this will just make it very easy for Sullivan to point out that the people making this representation are therefore confessing to being completely unfamiliar with documents on which the MTD heavily relies, which means he shouldn’t take the MTD all that seriously.

The shell game behind the actual declarations

As noted, this declaration is a filing signed by Jocelyn Ballantine, submitting declarations from three other people:

  • Executive Assistant Director John Brown, whose job it is to submit declarations like this
  • EDMO AUSA Sayler Fleming, one of the AUSAs conducting this irregular investigation
  • Keith Kohne, one of the FBI Agents conducting the investigation

Brown starts by excluding three documents from his general certification (these are the ones that Fleming and Kohne will be on the hook for):

5. To the best of my knowledge, and based on the information provided to me, the Government Exhibits described in Exhibit A, 9 with the exception of ECF Nos. 198-8 and 249-1, are true and correct copies of documents and records, including copies of select pages of a larger record, maintained by the FBI pursuant to the applicable records retention policy. See ECF Nos. 198-2, 198-3, 198-4, 198-5, 198-6, 198-7, 198-9, 198-10, 198-11, 198-12, 198-13, and 198-14 9 9

6 To the best of my knowledge, and based on the information provided to me, the Discovery Documents described in Exhibit B, with the exception of ECF Nos. 228-3, are true and correct copies of documents and records maintained by the FBI pursuant to the applicable records retention policy. See ECF Nos. 231-1, 237-1. 251-1, 9 257-1. 259-1, 9 259-2, 259-3, and 264-1

Effectively, he is saying these documents are real and that Ballantine’s claims about the reasons for classification are valid.

He then says this about Ballantine’s own summary, which purports to be a summary of all the NSLs used against Mike Flynn, but which may not include one or more financial NSLs obtained in 2016.

One of the Discovery Documents is a summary substitution of classified materials that were provided to DC-USAO by the FBI. See ECF 257-2. This summary substitution was prepared by AUSA Jocelyn Ballantine, and was reviewed, approved, and declassified by the FBI To the best of my knowledge, and based on the information provided to me, the information contained therein truly and correctly summarizes the underlying classified information provided by the FBI and maintained by the FBI pursuant to the applicable records retention policy.

He’s saying that her summary accurately summarizes what she says it does, but he’s not saying that her description of it is accurate (which it wouldn’t be if EDMO told her to leave out 2016 NSLs).

Then it’s Fleming’s turn. After reviewing her role in this shoddy review and asserting that she has no reason to believe that the documents she got from FBI were irregular, she then explains why she did a summary of the texts that Strzok and a bunch of other people sent in early 2017: Just to get rid of unnecessary metadata, she says.

3. Among the documents and records that I reviewed were spreadsheets of electronic messages exchanged between FBI personnel involved in the Michael T. Flynn investigation and prosecution. The spreadsheets produced to EDMO contained messages and metadata that were not relevant to my review.

4. I created Government Exhibit ECF 198-8 and Discovery Document ECF 228-3. These exhibits truly and correctly reflect excerpts from documents and record maintained by the FBI pursuant to the applicable records retention policy that were provided to EDMO/DC-USAO for review.1

Then she admits someone — she doesn’t say who — made an error.

1 There is a single typographical error in these exhibits. A single message (“Will do.”) from DAD Peter Strzok, sent on 4-Jan-17, is incorrectly identified as having been sent at 2:17PM; the message was actually sent at 2:18PM.

What she doesn’t explain, though, is why her table has two headings that show she or someone else had to “correct” the dates and times in the spreadsheet (which may be where the typo got introduced, or retained).

Given that heading, she has no business treating the data she got as reliable, because either she or someone upstream from her had to fix it.

Then Keith Kohne steps in, the guy who conducted an incompetent interview (and possibly one of the guys who altered dates on government exhibits). He doesn’t provide any explanation of why he’s making the declaration — not even the standard boilerplate you’d find in an affidavit. He says only,

 I, Keith Kohne, hereby declare, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the document attached as Exhibit 1 to the Government’s Supplemental Filing in Support of Motion to Dismiss … is a true and correct copy of the report of the interview of William J. Barnett conducted on September 17, 2020.

Understand that this declaration lacks the certification afforded by the rules of FBI record-keeping. It lacks Brown’s certification that the data in was redacted properly (this was not). And it doesn’t explain why it wasn’t finalized as a 302 and submitted into FBI record-keeping systems.

Collectively, then, these declarations stop well short of certifying those texts, Ballantine’s summary, or the Barnett’s interview.

We already know that the Barnett interview is withholding material information. I guess we should assume there are problems with the other two documents as well.

Documents and comments

Here are the documents:

Draft closing communication (198-2) [Docket 2, Exhibit 1]

In the certification but not the exhibit referenced, DOJ redacts Bill Barnett’s name, who wrote the document, as well as that of Joe Pientka, who approved it. That serves to make it harder to figure out that the closing EC materially conflicts with unredacted claims Barnett made in his interview, particularly with regards to Barnett’s awareness that the investigation was a counterintelligence investigation considering 18 USC 951 charges.

It’s all the more problematic given that DOJ has submitted two versions of this document with the same Bates numbers; the earlier one does have the names redacted.

Opening Electronic Communication (198-3) [Docket 3, Exhibit 2]

This doesn’t include Bates numbers.

Mary McCord 302 (198-4) [Docket 4, Exhibit 3]

As with other documents, this one was specially declassified for this release. Another copy has been released under BuzzFeed’s FOIA.

Sally Yates 302 (198-5) [Docket 5, Exhibit 4]

Flynn got a summary of this before he allocuted his guilty plea before Sullivan.

170302 Jim Comey Transcript (198-6) [Docket 6, Exhibit 5]

As DOJ notes, HPSCI used a court reporter on this, so they didn’t have to certify it.

170214 Draft Flynn 302 (198-7) [Docket 7, Exhibit 6]

For some reason (I’ll return to this), DOJ submitted a draft version of the 302, rather than the final one (both have previously been submitted in this docket, and a less-redacted version of the 302 was released prior to this in BuzzFeed’s FOIA). Nowhere in the motion to dismiss does Timothy Shea acknowledge that he wasn’t relying on the final 302.

Text massages and electronic messages (198-8) [Docket 8, Exhibit 7]

The certification doesn’t include Bates stamps.

This is the document that has an admittedly minor error in one of the time stamps, saying that Strzok texted “Will do” at 2:18 instead of 2:17. But the error is interesting given that the table’s headings read, “Corrected Date, Corrected Time,” meaning these aren’t just copied, the times (and dates) were “corrected” (which is presumably where the error was introduced), raising questions about what they were corrected from. [My annotation.]

This is one of the documents that FBI EAD John Brown did not certify, which ought to raise questions about how these dates and times got “corrected.” Instead, the authentication reads:

Truly and correctly reflects information contained in documents and records maintained by the FBI, pursuant to the applicable records retention policy that were provided to EDMO.

Without an explanation of how why this data needed to be corrected, I think there are real questions whether this fulfills the requirement here.

Emails about the Logan Act (198-9) [Docket 9, Exhibit 8]

The certification doesn’t include Bates numbers.

170121-22 Emails about providing briefings (198-10) [Docket 10, Exhibit 9]

This certification doesn’t include Bates numbers.

170124 Emails of questions Flynn might ask (198-10) [Docket 10, Exhibit 9]

This certification doesn’t include Bates numbers. This matters both because they’re mixing docket number and exhibit number, but also because there are two copies of the identical document with a different Bates number in the docket.

Emails about 1001 warnings (198-10) [Docket 10, Exhibit 9]

This certification doesn’t include Bates numbers. This matters both because they’re mixing docket number and exhibit number, but also because there are two copies of the identical document with a different Bates number in the docket.

170124 Bill Priestap Notes (198-11) [Docket 11, Exhibit 10]

This certification doesn’t include Bates numbers. This matters both because they’re mixing docket number and exhibit number, but also because there are two copies of the same document with a different Bates number in the docket, yet both have the blue sticky that is hidden in later documents (raising questions about why there are two separate direct scans).

170124 Andrew McCabe write-up (198-12) [Docket 12, Exhibit 11]

This document doesn’t have a Bates stamp on it at all, which is especially problematic given that another less redacted version of the document is in this docket, with a Bates stamp of the same series as other documents submitted with the motion to dismiss.

The May version, with the Bates stamp, makes it clear that McCabe agreed with Flynn that leaks were a problem. [My annotations.]

The motion to dismiss version redacts that.

McCabe’s comment about leaks in no way qualifies under any claimed basis for redaction stated in certification.

It also appears to redact the prior declassification stamp.

One thing DOJ did by submitting this without a Bates stamp is avoided admitting that the document is not at all new, as the Motion to Dismiss suggested.

170124 Strzok and Pientka Notes of Flynn interview (198-13) [Docket 13, Exhibit 12]

These were released as the same exhibit, which given that they don’t use Bates numbers to identify which is which, effectively means they haven’t told Judge Sullivan which Agent’s notes are which, something that Sidney Powell wailed mightily about the last time it happened. They do, however, get it right in the transcript.

In the Pientka notes, however, there are numerous examples of things that are clear, at least from the context, that don’t get transcribed properly.

170822 Strzok 302 (198-14) [Docket 14, Exhibit 13]

This had already been produced in this docket.

200917 “Report” of Bill Barnett’s interview (249-1)

In the Government Supplemental Filing accompanying this interview, they claim that this is, “The FBI 302” of the Barnett interview. Here, they’re correctly noting that it’s not actually a 302, which makes it even more problematic than it already was.

The certification makes it clear that this “report” is maintained differently than normal 302s. Rather than certifying it as,

True and correct copy of a document or record maintained by the FBI pursuant to the applicable records retention policy.

It is instead certified as,

True and correct copy of the report of that interview.

I’m not sure Sullivan is going to be that thrilled that FBI itself is not treating this interview with the regularity of other investigative documents.

This “report” is probably one of the reasons why DOJ included this language in the filing.

There have been no material alterations made to any of the 14 Government Exhibits filed in support of the motion to dismiss and the supplement to the motion to dismiss. Several of the documents contain routine redactions made by the FBI to protect classified information, and/or law enforcement sensitive information, and/or made to comply with the Local Rule to remove Privacy Act information.

As I have laid out, DOJ withheld material information — most notably, all the nice things Barnett said about Brandon Van Grack — by redacting information that would otherwise be unsealed.

This is one of the documents that EAD John Brown did not certify; instead, one of the agents who did the interview did, which suggests it could not be certified properly. It also suggests that Ballantine, who knows it is withholding material information, doesn’t want to be in a position where she can see it (even though she sent an unredacted copy to Flynn).

Text messages (228-3)

The certification notes these are identical to the 198-8 text messages, with the error under heading, “corrected time.” It’s unclear why, in this one case, DOJ admitted to the same exhibit being filed multiple times, since in other cases they don’t note it.

170105 Strzok Notes (231-1)

The transcription of these notes don’t note the redactions. That’s significant because the only difference between this set of notes and the later, altered ones, is that they declassified a bit more information in the latter case.

170125 Gauhar Notes (237-1)

The transcription is inconsistent about whether it treats cross-outs as unintelligible or not, in one place treating a heading “Intro” as intelligible, but not references to “Thanksgiving” and “He said.”

170125 Strzok Notes (237-1)

By labeling these notes as Strzok’s, DOJ makes it more clear that they redacted information that must match other sets of notes from the same meeting.

170130 [Draft] Executive Summary of Flynn investigation (237-1)

The certification doesn’t reveal that this is a draft document, not a finalized one.

170330 Dana Boente Notes (237-1)

Undated McCabe Notes (248-2/259-1)

The transcription doesn’t note that McCabe crossed off his notes on Flynn. Nor does it admit that it redacted what appears to be a continuation of the discussion of Flynn.

The authentication notes that it is,

True and correct copy of a document or record maintained by the FBI pursuant to the applicable records retention policy (ECF 259-1)

That means they’re only certifying that this is something in FBI records (which it shouldn’t be, since it’s a re-altered altered document).

They also leave out Bates numbers, which is problematic because the re-altered document is technically a new document, but it retains the same Bates stamp.

170105 Strzok Notes (248-3/259-2)

The transcription reveals that two of the three new things revealed in the new copy were unintelligible to DOJ, which raises real questions about why they left it unredacted.

The authentication notes that it is,

True and correct copy of a document or record maintained by the FBI pursuant to the applicable records retention policy (ECF 259-2)

That means they’re only certifying that this is something in FBI records (which it shouldn’t be, since it’s a re-altered altered document).

They also leave out Bates numbers, which is problematic because the re-altered document is technically a new document, but it retains the same Bates stamp.

Undated Strzok Notes (248-4/259-3)

As with some others, the transcription doesn’t note all the redactions, which in this case raises questions about why they included notes from the day before.

In addition, they leave out a scribble in front of the word “willfullness” meaning Strzok switched what they were measuring with regards to whether Flynn’s lies about Turkey were deliberate.

The authentication notes that it is,

True and correct copy of a document or record maintained by the FBI pursuant to the applicable records retention policy (ECF 259-3)

That means they’re only certifying that this is something in FBI records (which it shouldn’t be, since it’s a re-altered altered document).

They also leave out Bates numbers, which is problematic because the re-altered document is technically a new document, but it retains the same Bates stamp.

170306 Jim Crowell Notes (251-1)

As expected, DOJ was thoroughly dishonest with this document. They don’t reveal that they’ve redacted something — either a date, or names — where they indicate that they’ve added a date. One way or another, this transcription is false.

Plus, if they’ve redacted the names of non-senior people in the meeting (which is the non-suspect excuse for the redaction), then they need to note that in the transcription. The alternative, of course, is worse, that they knowingly altered the date.

This is one instance where not revealing whether DOJ consulted with the author is especially problematic. But since Crowell is now a DC judge just next door to Sullivan’s courthouse, maybe he can just go ask.

170329 Gauhar Notes (251-1)

180119 Schools Notes (251-1)

161226 Clinesmith NSL Email (257-1)

The certification provides the wrong date for this email, labeling it 12/26/16. [My annotations.]

it was 12/23/16.

Unlike some of the other things here, I think this is just a sloppy error, not an affirmative misrepresentation. But it is ironic that they made the error with Clinesmith.

200924 Ballantine Summary Substitution of NSLs issued in Crossfire Razor (257-2)

In her notice of discovery correspondence accompanying this, Ballantine doesn’t note that she wrote this summary for EDMO to review for them to, in turn, give back to her to give to Flynn. That’s important, because it’s unclear whether the summary shows all NSLs, or only NSLs for the period in question. Both Barnett’s testimony and the Kevin Clinesmith email included suggest the latter.

170125 OGC Notes (264-1)

This doesn’t include Bates numbers, which is interesting because an older 2019 Bates stamp not seen elsewhere is included (possibly indicating that this was previously shared with DOJ IG).

The Government Agent Who Altered Andrew McCabe’s Notes Remains Unnamed

/93 Comments/in , , /by

The frothers have convinced themselves that the sticky notes via which misleading dates were added to Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe’s handwritten notes do not amount to “altering” those notes. That’s nonsense. Not only did the date added to Strzok’s notes suggest they could have been written on January 4, 2017 when several documents that had already been submitted in the docket (as well as other public documents) made it clear the notes had to have been written on January 5, 2017. But the added date — indicating that whoever wrote it thought the notes could be January 4 or 5 — don’t match the notice DOJ originally gave Sidney Powell about the notes, which suggested the could have been written on January 3.

There are further problems with the alterations, not least that DOJ claims that these documents were “scanned.” A comparison of the original set of notes with the altered one, along with the blue sticky visible on Bill Priestap’s notes with how the same kind of blue sticky appeared on McCabe’s altered notes make it clear these were copied, along with being scanned, a step that made the alterations far less visible.

Worse still, rather than providing unaltered versions of the notes, DOJ instead provided altered versions of the altered notes. That’s easiest to see by comparing the original, altered McCabe notes, where you can see the lined page underneath the added date.

With the altered altered notes.

It’s clear that rather than simply taking the sticky off, DOJ instead simply whited out the date, along with the lines of the page beneath it.

But you can see this by comparing the three versions of the Strzok notes. Unaltered:

First alteration:

Second alteration:

The sticky is still visible in the second alteration, which suggests they’ve done the same thing they did with McCabe’s altered notes, just edit out the alteration, rather than scan the original document. I suspect the reason they doubled down on altering documents is because doing otherwise would make it clear that the McCabe notes, in particular, could not have been “scanned,” because it would have made the blue sticky visible.

So tomorrow they’re going to have to certify that their re-altered notes are “authentic.”

There may be a far more interesting reason why DOJ chose to re-alter the altered documents rather than providing the originals.

In both Jocelyn Ballantine’s notice of discovery correspondence about the Strzok notes:

During the review, agents for EDMO placed a single yellow sticky note on each page of the notes with estimated dates (the notes themselves are undated). Those two sticky notes were inadvertently not removed when the notes were scanned.

I am providing replacement versions of these documents, and ask that you destroy the prior versions provided to you. We have determined, and confirmed with counsel for Peter Strzok, that the content of the notes was not otherwise altered.

And her notice of compliance, falsely claiming to comply with Judge Emmet Sullivan’s order to authenticate all the documents submitted in this case, she blamed WDMO FBI Agents for the alteration to Strzok’s notes.

In response to the Court and counsel’s questions, the government has learned that, during the review of the Strzok notes, FBI agents assigned to the EDMO review placed a single yellow sticky note on each page of the Strzok notes with estimated dates (the notes themselves are undated). Those two sticky notes were inadvertently not removed when the notes were scanned by FBI Headquarters, before they were forwarded to our office for production.

But her notice of discovery correspondence accompanying the newly altered McCabe notes:

At some point during the course of the review of this page of notes, government agents placed a clear sticky notes (with a colored tab) on this page of notes. On the clear portion of this tab was written the date of 5/10/2017. This sticky note was inadvertently not removed when the notes were scanned.

I am providing a replacement version of this document, and ask that you destroy the prior version provided to you. The content of the notes was not otherwise altered.

And her notice of compliance, she didn’t reveal who had altered McCabe’s notes.

Similarly, the government has learned that, at some point during the review of the McCabe notes, someone placed a blue “flag” with clear adhesive to the McCabe notes with an estimated date (the notes themselves are also undated). Again, the flag was inadvertently not removed when the notes were scanned by FBI Headquarters, before they were forwarded to our office for production.

In one case, she blames, “government agents,” in the other case, she blames “someone.” Blaming “someone” is not a very good way to convince a judge you’re not pulling a fast one.

Realtering the altered notes is not either.

Note, too, that while Ballantine says she has reviewed the contents of Strzok’s notes with his lawyer, she only claims that the content of the McCabe notes has not been altered. If the redactions change the meaning of the notes, falsely tying a SSCI briefing to the notes about Flynn, I can see why she might do that.

By realtering the notes, DOJ is hiding that the altered notes were not, in fact, scans (because if they had been scanned the alteration would have been obvious because the stickies in both cases were colored, and FBI’s scans pick up color).

But I suspect they’re also hiding who that “government agent” is who altered McCabe’s notes.

Government Caught Between a Recusal Motion and Desperation

/22 Comments/in , , /by

Last week, Sidney Powell made her first formal request that Judge Emmet Sullivan recuse.

In response, Judge Sullivan said (while noting the proper time for such a request was last year), file a motion.

Sidney did.

It was a shitshow.

Nevertheless, Judge Sullivan politely invited the government to weigh in.

They’ve now done so. While not disagreeing with Flynn, they argue that the way to proceed is on the motion to dismiss — and press for urgent response.

The United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, respectfully files this response to General Michael T. Flynn’s Motion to Disqualify Judge Emmet Sullivan, United States v. Flynn, 17-cr-232 (Doc. 161), filed on October 7, 2020. As this Court is aware, during the mandamus proceedings before the en banc Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, General Flynn asked that “any further proceedings be conducted by a different judge.” In re Flynn, No. 20-2153, Doc. 1846621 at 24. While the government did not address that request in its written pleadings, when asked during oral argument, the government offered that it had “reluctantly come to the view that there is now at least a question about appearances of impartiality” because this Court’s filing of a petition for en banc review suggested a “level of investment in the proceedings that is problematic.” In re Flynn, No. 20-2153, Doc. 1859900 (Transcript of the August 11, 2020, Hearing) at 54. The D.C. Circuit rejected that view. In re Flynn, No. 20-5143, 2020 WL 5104220, at *16 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 31, 2020).

Based in part on subsequent events, including the hearing held before the Court on September 29, 2020, General Flynn again raises the serious charge that this Court is biased and has engaged in misconduct. The government does not believe that adjudicating General Flynn’s motion is the most appropriate way for this Court to proceed. Consistent with the en banc D.C. Circuit’s statement that “[a]s the underlying criminal case resumes in the District Court, we trust and expect the District Court to proceed with appropriate dispatch,” In re Flynn, 2020 WL 5104220, at *7, the government respectfully submits that instead the Court should immediately grant the unopposed motion to dismiss the criminal information with prejudice. Doing so would avoid any further delay to General Flynn and to the government, and would eliminate any need for the Court to address the disqualification motion, which would be moot.

This is a nifty way to use the purportedly agreeing sides against each other.

The government wants this done by November 3. That makes Sulliavan’s response to Powell on recusal easier.

 

The “Scanned” Andrew McCabe Notes Weren’t [Just] “Scanned”

/54 Comments/in , /by

The story DOJ offered yesterday to explain why they had altered several exhibits of undated notes raise more questions then they answered. In both cases where DOJ has admitted the exhibits had added dates — Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe — those dates are problematic.

Plus, the excuse offered for those dates — that someone forgot to take off a clear sticky and post-it notes before copying the exhibit — can’t explain the third instance where DOJ added a date, where they incorporated it into the redaction of notes taken from a meeting involving ODAG’s office.

Indeed, the redaction may even cover an existing date (see what look like the slashes of a date, outlined in red, though that could also record the names of other attendees), with a date added in the redaction (outlined in yellow).

Moreover, there’s a problem with the excuse DOJ offered about the McCabe notes, which went as follows:

Similarly, the government has learned that, at some point during the review of the McCabe notes, someone placed a blue “flag” with clear adhesive to the McCabe notes with an estimated date (the notes themselves are also undated). Again, the flag was inadvertently not removed when the notes were scanned by FBI Headquarters, before they were forwarded to our office for production.

That is, DOJ is claiming that “someone” missed a blue “flag” when they were “scanning” McCabe’s notes and so inadvertently left a date — the wrong date, probably — on the exhibit, without leaving any sign on the exhibit itself.

The problem with this explanation is that we know precisely what a blue sticky left on an actual “scan” looks like. It looks just like what we say in the Bill Priestap notes submitted three times under two different Bates stamp numbers.

That is, if the document were just scanned, it would show up quite obviously, as it does here, and would be impossible to miss.

And yet this “scan” attributed to “somebody” doesn’t show up, possibly because the redaction covers it.