Newly declassified FBI notes are raising serious questions about the prosecution of former national security advisor Mike Flynn.

Handwritten records from the agents who interviewed Flynn differ in key respects from the official report later used to pursue a federal criminal charge.

The notes were written by former FBI Special Agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka during their January 24, 2017, interview with Flynn.

The White House Government Transparency Task Force released the records Wednesday as federal prosecutors intensify their examination of the Russia collusion investigation.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

At issue is the difference between the agents’ immediate notes and the typed FD 302 report entered into the FBI system more than 20 days after the interview.

That report became central to the claim that Flynn lied about conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Prosecutors alleged that Flynn “falsely stated and represented” that he “did not ask the [Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak] to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions the United States had imposed against Russia” following accusations of Russian election interference.

FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka is about to be revealed once again for being a dirty cop. If he knew he and agent Strock lied about me and said nothing (and both did), he, like many others, deserve to be held accountable to the maximum extent of the law. @FBIDirectorKash https://t.co/3TuPRopLcA

— General Mike Flynn (@GenFlynn) September 9, 2026

Yet Pientka’s handwritten notes contain a striking statement apparently attributed to Flynn about his discussion with Kislyak: “Hey, don't do anything.”

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

That wording hardly supports the tidy narrative later presented by prosecutors that Flynn flatly denied discussing restraint with the Russian ambassador.

The official report also said Flynn remembered making four or five calls on the day in question while vacationing in the Dominican Republic.

Strzok’s handwritten notes instead quoted Flynn as saying, “If so, don't remember. If so, busy place to make phone calls.”

Both agents’ notes indicate Flynn did not actually remember making four or five calls. One wrote, “I [do not] remember making 4-5 calls,” while another recorded that Flynn answered “if so, don’t remember,” when questioned about the number of calls.

The FD 302 presented Flynn’s response differently, stating that he remembered making four to five calls but struggled with connectivity.

That is not a minor stylistic cleanup, it is a meaningful alteration in how Flynn’s memory and certainty were portrayed.

The same problem appears in the treatment of sanctions and diplomatic expulsions.

The official report attributed this response to Flynn: “Not really. I don’t remember. It wasn’t, ‘Don’t do anything.’”

Pientka’s contemporaneous notes recorded a materially different answer: “Not really. I don’t remember. Hey don’t do anything.”

The notes also said there was no “long drawn out” discussion, but they did not show Flynn categorically denying that the issue arose.

Flynn initially pleaded guilty to making false statements, then sought to withdraw that plea after hiring attorney Sidney Powell.

She argued that the report supporting the prosecution had been altered by Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, even though Page was not present for the interview.

Text messages later revealed that Strzok and Page discussed significant revisions to the report.

The editing process becomes even harder to dismiss when compared directly with the newly released handwritten notes, which preserve uncertainty that the official version appears to smooth away.

The FBI’s own earlier findings add another troubling layer.

Agents in the Washington Field Office had prepared to close the Flynn investigation after finding “no derogatory” information suggesting he committed a crime or posed a national security threat.

Strzok intervened before the case could be closed, and the bureau shifted toward interviewing Flynn without the usual notification to the incoming White House.

Senior counterintelligence official William Priestap privately worried that the FBI was “playing games” and trying to “get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

The agents who conducted the interview also did not believe Flynn was intentionally deceptive.

A later memorandum from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team stated, “Strzok provided his view that Flynn appeared truthful during the interview,” a conclusion that sits awkwardly beside the prosecution that followed.

Justice Department officials reportedly considered a prosecution under the Logan Act unrealistic, with one describing it as a “long shot.”

Despite court orders requiring disclosure of evidence favorable to Flynn, much of the material was allegedly withheld from his lawyers and the courts for years.

President Trump pardoned Flynn in November 2020, ending the criminal case.

Flynn later pursued a malicious prosecution lawsuit, and the Justice Department under Attorney General Pam Bondi settled the renewed case in March 2025 for approximately $1.2 million.

The newly exposed discrepancies do not resemble harmless clerical differences.

They raise the possibility that uncertainty in Flynn’s actual answers was transformed into certainty on paper, giving prosecutors a cleaner case than the agents’ own notes supported.

For years, Americans were told the Russia investigation represented sober law enforcement at work.

These records instead reveal another chapter of manipulated procedure, selective documentation, and bureaucratic gamesmanship aimed squarely at Trump and those around him.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.