Posted on 06/20/2018 5:17:10 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The FBI may have "edited and changed" key witness reports in the Hillary Clinton and Russia investigations, a top House Republican charged in a hearing into FBI and Justice Department misconduct Tuesday.
Freedom Caucus Chair Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C, also raised the possibility that the FBI misled the DOJ watchdog in an attempt to hide the identities of FBI employees who were caught sending anti-Trump messages.
The House Judiciary and Oversight committees were questioning Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz over his bombshell report into FBI and DOJ misconduct during the Hillary Clinton email probe.
"The other thing that I would ask you to look into, there is growing evidence that 302s were edited and changed,” Meadows told Horowitz. “Those 302s, it is suggested that they were changed to either prosecute or not prosecute individuals. And that is very troubling.”
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
So says Captain Obvious.
The Swamp is deep, wide and SMELLY!
And nothing will happen to anyone of any real relevance.
A poor sap or two will be targeted and much speechifying done.
The real culprits not only get away with it, they all but brag, laugh and thumb their noses at us while Chihuahuas like Gowdy yap.
Do I sound jaded?
“Do I sound jaded?”
No. Just experienced.
There was a time in my younger and more innocent (ignorant) life when I thought the FBI and CIA were acting in our best interests. That youthful fantasy has long been crushed.
Oh yeah. There are those text messages which might suggest he is just a tinsy winsy bit biased I suppose?
But they are all such good and upstanding citizens working diligently to uphold the law equally for all I thought?
My a#s.
WHAT WAS THE ROAD MAP???
And WHAT was the INSURANCE POLICY that was to be used if the ROAD MAP didn't work???
HELLO, MARK MEADOWS, JIM JORDAN, Matt GAETZ, and most of all TREY GOWDY!!!!
I’d be surprised if the docs hadn’t been altered, edited, and phonied up to the max. They lie about everything else, why would anyone believe they’d be honest about this one thing?
Now we know why Mike Flynn’s sentencing has been delayed for months.
The FBI needs to memorialize interviews with audio/video recordings. Relying on 302s of an agents “memory” is ripe for corruption.
Yesterday in Berlin:
“Comey responds to Clinton: She still doesn’t get why she was under investigation:
Hard to imagine why, in an era when tape recorders have been around for decades, the FBI allows the retention of agent “notes” to represent an interview...
The whole 302 process seeme very shady, designed to avoid accuracy and be biased in favor of where the Very Special Agents of the FIB want to go.
Sounds like the VSAs tag team the interviewee and can write up whatever they want as there are purposely no recordings. Then it’s two against one testimony. I’m sure the 302s are subject to editing at the time of generation, possibly as a joint effort with who knows who.
Of course they could be edited later by others. With no recordings who knows?
>>There was a time in my younger and more innocent (ignorant) life when I thought the FBI and CIA were acting in our best interests. That youthful fantasy has long been crushed.
<<
Ah, the heady days of Ephraim Zimbalist Jr., Peter Graves (implicitly CIA) and Robert Culp.
If I was on a Federal grand jury is have a hard time stopping myself from laughing out loud every time an FBI agent was brought in to testify.
Was anyone else in the office or communicating via electronic device to those in the office?
From my experience in the field and in another organization, I notice anytime one pulls out a recorder or a witness even thinks the interview is recorded, they dummy up.
Except in matters involving false statements and witness impeachment, in a trial what an agent says is considered heresay except for a very few special circumstances i.e. dying declarations and exclamations. Yes they can testify at at a grand jury to what they were told but that cannot be used as first hand evidence at trial except for the limited uses I noted above.
I am not saying they should not record witness interviews, but just providing the rationale why they are not. IMO, subject interviews should be recorded albeit it is not a common practice as most times the subject will have an attorney present.
May have? At this point, what difference does it make? Bleach wipe and destroy, it’s all good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.