THREAD: @SidneyPowell1's remarkable brief courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco… raises many issues. In this thread, I'll comment on details concerning one of the two false statement counts in Flynn indictment: two supposed statements on UN vote on Israeli settlements. 
@SidneyPowell1 2/ the brief is very lucid, but necessarily relies on footnotes and appendices. Most of this thread is simply following her footsteps, but I've added a concordance of agent notes to the 302, which may be helpful in showing astounding lacunae in the FBI documentation.
@SidneyPowell1 3/ the two counts in the Indictment (see above) track two paragraphs in the 302 dated Feb 15, 2017 (made available in Dec 2018) as shown in highlight below.
@SidneyPowell1 4/Powell recently obtained a redlined version of the 302 dated Feb 11, 2017 (pages 91ff of the Brief). She pointed out that key elements of the Indictment were not introduced until the Feb 11 changes, that key new elements are not documented in agent notes and
@SidneyPowell1 5/ perhaps most surprisingly, that, in some Strzok-Page texts that had been withheld, Strzok and Page discussed the editing of the Flynn 302 on Friday Feb 10. It is unclear on this record whether the Feb 11 redlined version was prepared by Page or Strzok.
@SidneyPowell1 6/ Powell pointed out the significance of Feb 10 as a date: as this was the day that "news broke" that Flynn had apparently lied to VP Pence about discussion of sanctions, resulting in Flynn's resignation a couple of days later and Comey sandbagging Trump within a week.
@SidneyPowell1 7/ while I remember, there is a lacuna from Feb 9 to Feb 13 in the Strzok-Page text compilation at Spygate Project thespygateproject.org : I presume that this lacuna is because the FBI concealed these texts previously.
@SidneyPowell1 8/ Powell observed in the Brief that the Feb 11 version "added an unequivocal statement that “FLYNN stated he
did not”—in response to whether Mr. Flynn had asked Kislyak to vote in a certain manner or slow down the UN vote".
did not”—in response to whether Mr. Flynn had asked Kislyak to vote in a certain manner or slow down the UN vote".
@SidneyPowell1 9/ This can be confirmed on p96 of the Brief excerpted below. Previously the next phrase was "FLYNN stated he did not believe his calls would change anything". The insertion "FLYNN stated he did not", presented as an answer, is very different and is what was cited in Indictment.
@SidneyPowell1 10/ Powell also observed that the phrase "if KISLYAK
described any Russian response to a request by FLYNN" - the phrase which is incorporated in the Indictment - was also added on Feb 11 (and has no support in agent notes).
described any Russian response to a request by FLYNN" - the phrase which is incorporated in the Indictment - was also added on Feb 11 (and has no support in agent notes).
@SidneyPowell1 11/ once again, this is confirmed in the redline 302 dated Feb 11, which clearly shows the introduction of this language.
@SidneyPowell1 12/ Powell also observed the lack of support in agent notes for key items in the 302, tho this section is not clear. I can't tell which is the "entire section from whole cloth" or which sentence was "moved". I could probably hazard a guess, but it would be better to clarify.
@SidneyPowell1 12/ here is a concordance of Pientka notes, Strzok notes (said by Powell to be more detailed) and 302 (Feb 11 insertions in bold blue). There are numerous phrases in common which serve as markers. There are also surprising lacunae.
@SidneyPowell1 13/ there is nothing in the notes of either agent which documents the wording of the first question or that Flynn answered No to it. Items in agent notes correspond to prior sentences and succeeding sentences. Flynn did say No to a later question: is this mixed up in 302?
@SidneyPowell1 14/ the absence of any note on the first question makes me wonder whether it might have preceded Flynn’s comment “Don’t know if called K. maybe I did”, with Flynn's answer continuing into the riff about abstentions and votes. Watch the impact on the 302 by this slight change:
@SidneyPowell1 15/ ironically, there is more support for this version in the agent notes than for the formal 302, which added a key sentence totally unattested in the notes. But the main point is that the key sentence carried forward into Indictment lacks any support in this portion of notes.
@SidneyPowell1 16/ turning now to concordance relating to 2nd question: this question is documented in agent notes but NOT with the Feb 11 302 embellishment. On other hand, notes both indicate that Flynn said No to a question about "voting this way" before seguing to Egypt.
@SidneyPowell1 17/ note the highly compound question which the FBI claims to have asked:
did you make any comment to KISLYAK about voting in a certain manner or slowing down the vote or did KISLYAK describe any Russian response to your request?
To which, FLYNN supposedly answered, "No."
did you make any comment to KISLYAK about voting in a certain manner or slowing down the vote or did KISLYAK describe any Russian response to your request?
To which, FLYNN supposedly answered, "No."
@SidneyPowell1 18/ when one looks at the compound question reported in the 302 in sunshine, it seems implausible that the question was asked in this complicated form.
@SidneyPowell1 19/ returning to the Information, in respect to 2nd leg of this count ("KISLYAK described any Russian response to a request by FLYNN"), there's no evidence in the notes or early 302s that Flynn was asked such a question, let alone answered it. As to the first leg of the count,
@SidneyPowell1 20/ there is no evidence in the notes or even the 302s that Flynn was asked whether he requested Kislyak to DEFEAT the resolution or that he answered such a question.
@SidneyPowell1 21/ the only remaining issue in the Information on this count is whether Flynn lied about asking Kislyak to DELAY the resolution. As Powell observed, Flynn stated that he wasn't even sure whether he talked to Kislyak about the UN resolution.
@SidneyPowell1 13/ the Mueller Report adds some important information on these events which I ought to have considered in preparation of this thread, as it's unfavorable to anti-Strzok theories. Flynn admitted on Nov 15, 2017 that he "requested that Russia vote against or delay the resolution".
@SidneyPowell1 14/ there's also an important statement by Strzok in his Jul 29, 2017 interview (page 71 of Brief): that agents adopted tactic that "if Flynn said he did not remember something they knew he said,nthey would use exact words such as REDACTED to refresh his recollection",
@SidneyPowell1 15/ but not "confront him or try to talk him through it". The rest of this important paragraph is redacted: Why?
@SidneyPowell1 15/ re-reading the concordance of notes and 302 in this light, I think that seemingly over-precise questions in the 302 (especially in contrast to handwritten notes) probably derive from this tactic e.g. Mueller Report description of what happened (based on Flynn admission) match
@SidneyPowell1 16/ rather exactly to compound question in 302. This would be in accord with tactic explained by Strzok. I presume that Strzok made preparation notes for the interview; it would be a good idea to locate those as well.
@SidneyPowell1 17/ it does look to me that the first question in this sequence of the 302 may have been an embellishment: it doesn't fit in the flow. However, on balance, it looks to me like Strzok's second question gave Flynn an exit and he disdained it. A pox on all of them.
