Barr Installs Outside Prosecutor to Review Case Against Michael Flynn, Ex-Trump Adviser

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This to me looks like the dates are just written on multi-color post-it flags that were then photocopied, not written additions of the dates to the actual hard copies:

That's highlighting, moron.

The highlighting is not what i’m referring to. I’m saying the date is obviously written on post it tabs rather than being written directly on the document.

Look at the letter of transmittal along with the document as submitted to the court.

You are still a Trumphumping moron.

I agree with pp. Especially looking at this doc. Notice how the date on the left appears to be on a tab overlapping the redactions. Same border around the date.
I can't read the handwriting, but I can make out "Turkey." On the date 3-28-27 there were text messages about "Turks."
I think these dates were added on tabs matching handwritten notes up with text messages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This to me looks like the dates are just written on multi-color post-it flags that were then photocopied, not written additions of the dates to the actual hard copies:

Right, but those dates are what the Flynn team is using as evidence. And it clearly isn't accurate. That is either willful misconduct or abject stupidity.

Either way, that Barr has signed off on this is impeachable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This to me looks like the dates are just written on multi-color post-it flags that were then photocopied, not written additions of the dates to the actual hard copies:

That's highlighting, moron.

The highlighting is not what i’m referring to. I’m saying the date is obviously written on post it tabs rather than being written directly on the document.

You have never worked in law, right?

[Anonymous]

Put McCabe and Comey under oath and ask them about this altering. The cover-up is always worse than the crime and Barr came into this 2 years after!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Put McCabe and Comey under oath and ask them about this altering. The cover-up is always worse than the crime and Barr came into this 2 years after!

Did you mean Strozk?

"The cover-up is worse than the crime" -- you've got the wrong end of the stick with this one, bud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Put McCabe and Comey under oath and ask them about this altering. The cover-up is always worse than the crime and Barr came into this 2 years after!

The issue is the alteration of documents submitted to the court just last week, not years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Put McCabe and Comey under oath and ask them about this altering. The cover-up is always worse than the crime and Barr came into this 2 years after!

The altering was done by Flynn's legal team to use dates that weren't in the original document to help form an alternative narrative that doesn't exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put McCabe and Comey under oath and ask them about this altering. The cover-up is always worse than the crime and Barr came into this 2 years after!

The issue is the alteration of documents submitted to the court just last week, not years ago.

Yet these documents originated 4 years ago... try to keep up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put McCabe and Comey under oath and ask them about this altering. The cover-up is always worse than the crime and Barr came into this 2 years after!

The issue is the alteration of documents submitted to the court just last week, not years ago.

Yet these documents originated 4 years ago... try to keep up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put McCabe and Comey under oath and ask them about this altering. The cover-up is always worse than the crime and Barr came into this 2 years after!

The issue is the alteration of documents submitted to the court just last week, not years ago.

Yet these documents originated 4 years ago... try to keep up.

According to Strozk, they didn’t have the dates on them when they created. Those were added sometime later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This to me looks like the dates are just written on multi-color post-it flags that were then photocopied, not written additions of the dates to the actual hard copies:

That's highlighting, moron.

The highlighting is not what i’m referring to. I’m saying the date is obviously written on post it tabs rather than being written directly on the document.

You have never worked in law, right?

Did you not read the cover letter from Strzok's attorneys and Strzok's tweet? They're the ones claiming it's some sort of egregious alteration of the documents intended to mislead someone into believing Strzok wrote those dates on the document himself when the tabbing seems most likely to have been done by someone else after the fact to organize them.

From Strzok's attorney:

"On at least two occasions, there were handwritten additions, not written by Mr. Strzok, inserting dates, apparently designed to indicate the date or dates on which the notes were written. On at least one occasion, the date added is wrong and could be read to suggest that a meeting at the White House happened before it actually did I'm attaching to this letter a copy of these two pages of notes, with highlighting to indicate the handwritten notations that Mr. Strzok did not write."

Tweet by Stzrok:

Disappointed to see the undisclosed addition of handwritten dates in copies of my notes DOJ turned over to Flynn's defense team, including a misleading perception helpful to the defense.

[Anonymous]

But it is an egregious alteration

[Anonymous]

I am betting that the pp who believes the additions were on the tab flaps is exactly right. And, they were added by the defense to make reference back to other evidence... possibly texts.

The dates both have the same border around them. I think this is intentional to indicate to the court that these were defense notes - not written on the document, but on the tab. Remember these are photocopies of the evidence and if the tab flaps have been dated by the defense team, they are not "altering evidence."

Strzok has gotten his knickers in a bunch about nothing and is probably making a big deal about this to distract the public from the other evidence. Mission accomplished, at least temporarily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am betting that the pp who believes the additions were on the tab flaps is exactly right. And, they were added by the defense to make reference back to other evidence... possibly texts.

The dates both have the same border around them. I think this is intentional to indicate to the court that these were defense notes - not written on the document, but on the tab. Remember these are photocopies of the evidence and if the tab flaps have been dated by the defense team, they are not "altering evidence."

Strzok has gotten his knickers in a bunch about nothing and is probably making a big deal about this to distract the public from the other evidence. Mission accomplished, at least temporarily.

If the dates are wrong, that's a problem. Sorry.

[Anonymous]