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.

image_print
18 replies
  1. klynn says:

    “ 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.

  2. Mitch Neher says:

    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?

  3. klynn says:

    Powell’s reaction in court currently is proving EW’s posts today are shining light and making people become unhinged.

    • klynn says:

      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.

  4. Rugger9 says:

    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

    • bmaz says:

      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.

      • bmaz says:

        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.

        • dude says:

          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?

            • bmaz says:

              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.

  5. BayStateLibrul says:

    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

Comments are closed.