Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) revealed Tuesday during the House Judiciary and Oversight committee’s hearing regarding the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton investigation that the FBI may have altered or manipulated the witness interviews compiled by investigators during both the Clinton and Russia investigations. The information, if proven true, could have significant implications in the case brought against against former National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office, where conflicting testimony and statements made by Former FBI Director James Comey, would call into question whether the agents who interviewed Flynn believed he was either lying or telling the truth.

Meadows was questioning Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, saying “there is growing evidence that 302s [FBI interview reports] were edited and changed. Those 302s, it is suggested that they were changed to either prosecute or not prosecute individuals. And that is very troubling.”

“It is suggested that [the 302s] they were changed to either prosecute or not prosecute individuals. And that is very troubling…”

Behind closed doors, in March 2017 Comey told Congress that the agents who interviewed Flynn on Jan. 24, 2017 did not believe that Flynn was lying. Comey later appeared to walk back his statement during an interview with Brett Baier on Fox News, suggesting that he didn’t recall making those statements to Congress, as previously reported. However, an unreacted section of the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia report specifically stated, “Director Comey testified to the committee that ‘the agents…discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn’t see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.”

If Flynn’s 302s were altered, or if the information in them was manipulated, that would be significant.  For some time, several sources have made that suggestion. They also stated that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was irate and wanted to find some way to prove Flynn lied to them during the interview. Ironically, McCabe was fired this year days before his official retirement and is now facing possible charges for lying under oath based on evidence discovered by Horowitz.

Michael Flynn

Meadows did not say which interviews may have been tampered with or which agents may have been involved.

Meadows also suggested that the FBI was not forthright with Horowitz, whose office released a scathing 568-page report on the bureau’s handling of the Clinton matter last week. He said the FBI’s reasons for redacting the names of two anonymous FBI employees identified in the report were based on the false premise that they were working in the counterintelligence division of the bureau.

“They don’t work in counterintelligence,” Meadows told Horowitz. “If that’s the reason the FBI is giving, they’re giving you false information, because they work for the [FBI] general counsel.”

Meadows named FBI attorneys, Kevin Clinesmith and Sally Moyer during the hearing and asked Horowitz if he could confirm that they were two of the unnamed agents in the report. Horowitz declined to confirm or deny the names out of concern and at the request of the bureau.

Want to know more about 302s and the FBI’s interviewing process? Tomorrow, I speak exclusively with a former Senior FBI official who will break it all down.

Notable Replies

  1. “the FBI may have altered or manipulated the witness interviews”
    “The information, if proven true,”
    “If Flynn’s 302s were altered, or if the information in them was manipulated, that would be significant.”

    Well folks, there you have it, once again, another classic Sara Carter wingnut conspiracy theory post, with some known facts connected by lies and suppositions, with wiggle room always provided for these falsehoods by throwing in “if proven true,” “may have,” and numerous “ifs.”
    Here’s a clue, Sara.
    Facts are true, period.
    Never “if true,” or “might be true.”
    And there is only one set of facts, not facts and “alternate facts.”
    So just give us the facts, not idiot HFC conspiracy theories and lies.

    And Sara, “horses may be able to fly, and if proven true, that would be significant, and we may then get horse droppings falling on us from the sky.”

    See how easy it is to write like Sara and the folks at Faux News?

  2. LOL. You’re so predictable. You like Mueller’s facts? Right? Like indicting a company that didn’t even exist. Like scrambling trying to hide his scam by saying his “evidence” is too “sensitive” to give to the very entities he said was involved in the incidents he says exists. Really? The very people he indicted shouldn’t know what they’re being charged with? Real honorable. Real honest. Real ethical. Really NOT.

    Mueller. Real dirty. Real dishonest. If he’s successful it won’t be the first time he’s knowingly railroaded innocent people. He should be charged with the murder of the innocent people he sent to prison that died there. He’s responsible for their deaths just as surely as night follows day.

  3. You mean like the possibly altered 302’s Gowdy referenced in the Horowitz/Wray interview? The same 302’s the DOJ keep withholding? If they haven’t been altered, why not just toss them out there for everybody to review? C’mon, take that diatribe to another leftist website where the unicorns reside,

  4. Pretty much everything Sara has reported on for the past year is becoming more clear every single day. We had a sham Hillary e-mail investigation followed by a sham Russian collusion manufactured investigation. The facts just keep piling up proving Sara has been right on the money from the beginning. Eventually, the 302’s will come to light and we will all be able to see if they were altered. Feel free to keep your head buried in the sand.

  5. If you followed Q much you would know that the POTUS team already has the great majority of the evidence. Plus they monitor/record all the communications the deep state makes, and have been doing so for quite a while.

    The frantic outbursts we are seeing now come from the fact that YOP’s buddies know they are up a creek without a paddle. The louder and shriller the media, Democrats, and RINOs get the more you can be confident that things are coming to head, and that they are losing. Look for organised “spontaneous” riots in the near future. Or at least attempts to do so.

Continue the discussion on the Sara Carter Forums

21 more replies