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.
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.