Other than that, how was the 302, Mrs Lincoln?

A 30 year FBI agent via AT:

There were two sets of notes, one long, neatly written, and detailed, and the other seemingly scribbled, as one would expect in an interview setting. Van Grack’s explanation is this: by switching the attribution of the two sets of notes, he’s saying that the long, detailed set of “notes” belongs to Pientka – the “primary note taker” – rather than Strzok, as we’ve been told up to now. That’s supposed to solve the difficulty of the lead interviewer – Strzok – also taking remarkably detailed notes. But that switch doesn’t really solve the credibility problem. Here’s why: The long set of notes actually looks like a handwritten draft of a 302.

I spent about 30 years doing interviews, taking notes, reading (or attempting to read) notes taken by other agents. I guarantee you that in my experience no notes looked like the “notes” you’ll see at the link. As I said – they look like like a rough draft done after the interview.

Why would Joe Pientka – or Peter Strzok, as the case might be – bother to produce a handwritten draft (if we accept that what we’ve been shown are simply not “notes”).

This is why. Because that handwritten draft could be changed at will, whereas nowadays, once you save something under a case file number – even as a draft – that’s recoverable. There’s an audit trail, which is what Powell keeps asking for. So, if you’re an “investigator” and you’re not sure how you want to make that interview sound, then you delay creating that discoverable digital trail. And that’s a sure indicator of dishonest intent.

Powell is doing a heck of a job, but she has a lot to work with.

One Response to “Other than that, how was the 302, Mrs Lincoln?”

  1. feeblemind Says:

    I hope Powell doesn’t decide to commit suicide.

Leave a Reply