Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516
Results 151 to 160 of 160

Thread: Crooked Michael - "Flynn communicated with Russian officials about sanctions..."

  1. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by wrmettler View Post
    The FBI is probably the only police agency in the US that doesn't video/audio record interviews. They put the interviewer's recollection of the interview in a 302 report.
    Totally untrue.

    At one point, FBI agents had to have permission to record interviews (from division counsel, if I remember right). That changed several years ago, and they are now able to record them without asking.

    It’s also certainly not unheard of to write a written report of an interview without recording it, though having a recording is generally preferable.

  2. #152
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    I stand gladly corrected. Thank you.

    But, this raises the question: If they had the ability to record the interview, why did Strzok and Pientka decided not to record Flynn?
    The inference being that Strzok intended to modify the original 302?
    This may be particularly true because of Pientka's memo about the goal of Flynn's interview.

  3. #153
    Murder Machine, Harmless Fuzzball TCinVA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRoland View Post
    You must have read a different transcript. This one clearly shows he discussed the Russian sanctions, which he then lied to the FBI about.
    Alleged false statements to the FBI (because even now NOBODY has seen the original 302's which are the only record of the conversation) have to be material to an investigation.

    By the FBI's own account they had closed the counter-intelligence investigation of Flynn (on the absurd theory that he was an agent of Russia based on the fact that he knew Russians and had been to Russia once...by which half of Washington DC is an agent of Russia) after finding no derogatory information.

    There is nothing criminal in an incoming administration official having discussions with ambassadors about any number of things, including sanctions.

    The key element of 18 USC 1001 is materiality to an active investigation.

    Which is why the DOJ moved to drop the charges.
    3/15/2016

  4. #154
    Murder Machine, Harmless Fuzzball TCinVA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by wrmettler View Post
    I stand gladly corrected. Thank you.

    But, this raises the question: If they had the ability to record the interview, why did Strzok and Pientka decided not to record Flynn?
    Probably for the same reasons that they dodged long established procedure in doing the interview and failed to issue a miranda warning.
    3/15/2016

  5. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by TCinVA View Post
    Probably for the same reasons that they dodged long established procedure in doing the interview and failed to issue a miranda warning.
    There was no reason to read Miranda.

  6. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by TCinVA View Post
    Probably for the same reasons that they dodged long established procedure in doing the interview and failed to issue a miranda warning.
    Why would the agents have needed to Mirandize Flynn? He wasn’t in custody at the time of the interview.
    My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.

  7. #157
    So, does PF have anyone that still believes the Russia hoax? I’m serious.

    Here’s an interesting article from the New York Times.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/u...er-strzok.html

    Mr. Strzok’s skeptical annotations of the Times article, headlined “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence,” were similar to congressional testimony months later by the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey disputing it. Mr. Comey did not say exactly what he thought was incorrect about the article, which cited four current and former American officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified information.

    Mr. Strzok’s annotations disputed the article’s premise and other aspects. He wrote, “We are unaware of ANY Trump advisers engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.”
    #RESIST

  8. #158
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by TCinVA View Post
    Probably for the same reasons that they dodged long established procedure in doing the interview and failed to issue a miranda warning.
    As several other LE posters mentioned there was no reason to provide Flynn Miranda warnings as he was not in custody. That is not an FBI thing, it is true across case law and law enforcement. Nor are Miranda warnings mandatory for those in custody. Agency policies may vary but they are only legally required if LE wants to ask the detained person something for use in court.

    IME in order to successfully prosecute an 18 USC 1001 case LE must provide 1001 warnings. These can be given at the start of the interview or more they can be given mid interview or during a follow up interview at which time the false statements are re-addressed under the 1001 warnings.

    As for recording interviews, FBI policy on things like this can be found in the FBI DIOG (Domestic Investigations Operations Guide).

    You can read the FBI DIOG here: https://vault.fbi.gov/FBI%20Domestic...e%20%28DIOG%29

    In general, interviews of subjects in FBI /DOJ custody should be recorded barring exigent circumstances.

    Other interviews may or may not be recorded depending on the circumstances.

  9. #159
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by TC215 View Post
    Totally untrue.

    At one point, FBI agents had to have permission to record interviews (from division counsel, if I remember right). That changed several years ago, and they are now able to record them without asking.

    It’s also certainly not unheard of to write a written report of an interview without recording it, though having a recording is generally preferable.
    How long ago ?

    Surreptitious recording of interviews still requires an approval process.

    There is also an administrative burden to recording interviews vs the way recordings are done at the local LE level relating to ensuring the recording has not been altered (Hash values).

  10. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    How long ago ?

    Surreptitious recording of interviews still requires an approval process.

    There is also an administrative burden to recording interviews vs the way recordings are done at the local LE level relating to ensuring the recording has not been altered (Hash values).
    I reached out and got clarification— If it’s an interview of a person that’s in custody, the agent does not need permission to record the interview. Permission is still required if the person being interviewed is not in custody.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •