The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Anastasis 23395]

I honestly can’t believe that those 302s are breathing new life into this server conspiracy, but  I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. 

[Captainant 27464]

Lmao you're literally the person bringing it into the convo and bringing the server up again. You're the person breathing new life into it by continuously caterwauling about it, and when the document is cited back to you, your sensitive sensibilities are rustled. That's not very big brain of you, for an avowed big-brain centrist. 

[triplehorn 2664]

19 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Lol. We ARE doing the server thing again!

Yes.  Yes we are !

Good to see you picked yourself up from your Horowitz IG faceplant.

And please link to this wide server debunking you're talking about.  Unless you made your point with a .gif, I missed it.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I honestly can’t believe that those 302s are breathing new life into this server conspiracy, but  I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. 

Who requested the FOIA? That should tell you all you need to know.

[Anastasis 23395]

19 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Lmao you're literally the person bringing it into the convo and bringing the server up again. You're the person breathing new life into it by continuously caterwauling about it, and when the document is cited back to you, your sensitive sensibilities are rustled. That's not very big brain of you, for an avowed big-brain centrist. 

Uh, I posted a link to source material relevant to the content of this thread for people to read. In response, Hugo posted an excerpt related to the server conspiracy.  He is actually the one who brought the topic into the conversation. 

8 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

 

Maybe for full effect you need the twat that Hugo lifted that image from. Or you can ask him his intent in highlighting that portion. 

 

 

[Anastasis 23395]

42 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Yes.  Yes we are !

 Good to see you picked yourself up from your Horowitz IG faceplant.

And please link to this wide server debunking you're talking about.  Unless you made your point with a .gif, I missed it.

Every sentence of this post is pure awesomeness.  A simultaneous blend of ignorance related to both past and future events. 

[triplehorn 2664]

middle of page 7:

"A Russian senator and mobster named Torshin may be involved in running the Central Bank of Russia. [...] Torshin may have funneled Russian money to the National Rifle Association (NRA) to use in support of Trump.  An NRA lawyer, (redacted), found out about the money pipeline and was very upset, but the election was over by the time she learned of it.  Simpson stated there are pictures of Torshin with Trump."

That NRA lawyer is named Cleta Mitchell. 

Of course all this news was breaking way before the '18 midterms when GOP controlled both houses of Congress.  So it got ZERO oxygen.

Also pre-midterms:

Quote

[...] As part of these inquiries, Wyden wrote a letter to the NRA in February asking the group to list all monetary contributions it had received from Russian nationals. Wyden said he was particularly interested in whether Russian entities aided the Trump campaign by funneling contributions to the NRA.

The organization spent at least $55 million during the 2016 election cycle, including an estimated $30 million to support Trump's presidential bid — more than its combined spending in all races during the 2008 and 2012 presidential election cycles.

And according to McClatchy, those figures may significantly underestimate what was actually spent. Two industry insiders said the group spent upwards of $70 million, but failed to disclose some of its expenditures.

Wyden gave the NRA a February 16 deadline to answer his questions and produce documents about any dealings with Russian individuals, businesses, or their intermediaries.

In its response, the NRA failed to directly answer Wyden's question about contributions from Russian-linked entities. "The NRA and its related entities do not accept funds from foreign persons or entities in connection with United States elections," the group said.

The NRA later acknowledged that it does accept foreign donations for its membership organization, but Torshin was listed as the sole contributor.

Now, it's backtracking again, admitting that it not only accepts foreign cash for membership fees — and that it received Russian money from at least 23 individuals — but that it also accepted donations outside of membership fees from at least two Russian individuals.

cont.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Maybe for full effect you need the twat that Hugo lifted that image from. Or you can ask him his intent in highlighting that portion. 

My intent was to troll you.  

[Anastasis 23395]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

My intent was to troll you.  

[triplehorn 2664]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Every sentence of this post is pure awesomeness.  A simultaneous blend of ignorance related to both past and future events. 

you're a bluff.  you got nothing.  keep the gifs coming tho.

[Biff Tannen 45495]

10 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

middle of page 7:

"A Russian senator and mobster named Torshin may be involved in running the Central Bank of Russia. [...] Torshin may have funneled Russian money to the National Rifle Association (NRA) to use in support of Trump.  An NRA lawyer, (redacted), found out about the money pipeline and was very upset, but the election was over by the time she learned of it.  Simpson stated there are pictures of Torshin with Trump."

That NRA lawyer is named Cleta Mitchell. 

Of course all this news was breaking way before the '18 midterms when GOP controlled both houses of Congress.  So it got ZERO oxygen.

Also pre-midterms:

 

This seems like a big deal.  Is this a big deal?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

These narratives surrounding Bruce Ohr, Glen Simpson, and the Steele Dossier are a troll job pushed by the GOP to distract from the important stuff in the Russia investigation.  I base this on the spin jobs currently going on in right wing media and message boards.  It’s just manufactured outrage so people ignore the very real findings and conclusions in the Mueller report. 

[GW Hayduke 1952]

If the Alfa/trump tower connection was “debunked,” why is most of the section of 302 redacted? What sensitive information could there be if something is “debunked?”

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 minute ago, GW Hayduke said:

why is most of the section of 302 redacted? What sensitive information could there be if something is “debunked?”

Sources and methods.  

[Anastasis 23395]

21 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This seems like a big deal.  Is this a big deal?

Simpson passed Ohr an article from thinkprogress.org.  Ohr passed that article to the FBI.  The content of that article is related by Ohr to the interviewer, as documented in the 302. 

[Anastasis 23395]

17 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

If the Alfa/trump tower connection was “debunked,” why is most of the section of 302 redacted? What sensitive information could there be if something is “debunked?”

The redaction codes are listed in the margin. 

[triplehorn 2664]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Simpson passed Ohr an article from thinkprogress.org.  Ohr passed that article to the FBI.  The content of that article is related by Ohr to the interviewer, as documented in the 302. 

Notice that the NRA lawyer's name is redacted in the 302.  Given her name was redacted at that time, it does not follow that the source of that part of the 302 came from any published article.

[Anastasis 23395]

7 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Notice that the NRA lawyer's name is redacted in the 302.  Given her name was redacted at that time, it does not follow that the source of that part of the 302 came from any published article.

Simpson relayed that particular name to Ohr with the article. It is discussed in Ohr's house testimony.

Cleta Mitchell BTW rolled off the NRA board in 2013 and has said that she had zero contact with the NRA during 2016. 

*Journey plays in background*

[elfenix 34171]

wheel in the sky keep on turning

[triplehorn 2664]

16 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Simpson relayed that particular name to Ohr with the article. It is discussed in Ohr's house testimony.

Cleta Mitchell BTW rolled off the NRA board in 2013 and has said that she had zero contact with the NRA during 2016. 

*Journey plays in background*

You mean Cleta was aware of rubles flowing into the NRA years before the 2016 election ?  Please, go on.

[Anastasis 23395]

1 minute ago, triplehorn said:

You mean Cleta was aware of rubles flowing into the NRA years before the 2016 election ?  Please, go on.

Yes! The Russians were funneling money to the NRA to support Trump even prior to 2013!

[triplehorn 2664]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Yes! The Russians were funneling money to the NRA to support Trump even prior to 2013!

 

 --> Maria Butina pleaded guilty to acting as an unregistered foreign agent of Russia as a part of her attempts since 2015 to gain influence among conservative individuals and groups, most notably the National Rifle Association. 

Was Butina the first, one and only, pre-Trump installment of Russian infiltration of the NRA ?  no way.

This pre-dates Trump.

Butina was only a pawn in the long game, and her persona was being developed even in 2013

Quote

In this photo taken on Sunday, April 21, 2013 , Maria Butina, leader of a pro-gun organization in Russia, speaks to a crowd during a rally in support of legalizing the possession of handguns in Moscow, Russia. Butina, a 29-year-old gun-rights activist, served as a covert Russian agent while living in Washington, gathering intelligence on American officials and political organizations and working to establish back-channel lines of communications for the Kremlin, federal prosecutors charged Monday, July 16, 2018. 

 

[hayden_horn 11360]

that russian nra money tho

(seriously, my tin foil hat firmly in place, i believe that republican politicians support trump (or retire) because of that dark, dirty, nra russian money)

[jimmyjazz 45560]

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I know! We should ask the twitter scooby doo crew!

You literally saw one surly poster chiming in with big tech words and you've taken that as proof that there is nothing there.  

Me personally?  I wouldn't know anything about servers one way or the other.  I don't take any random chatter as gospel.  I can only hope that the investigative and technological folks put their heads together for the greater good and figure out if there's any "there" there.  To believe as a layman, not only not FBI, not IT, but NOT INVOLVED that you can pronounce a particular angle as gospel or nonsense is foolishness.  It would be like a lay person diagnosing Trump's mental illness over the internet.  (Oops.)

Edited August 9, 2019 by jimmyjazz

[Biff Tannen 45495]

16 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

(seriously, my tin foil hat firmly in place, i believe that republican politicians support trump (or retire) because of that dark, dirty, nra russian money)

This is honestly the only thing that makes sense.  Why else would they have sold their souls?  Do they just like the dotard that much?  Come on man.  All signs point to the NRA and Russian influence.  Connect the fucking dots.  

[wildcat09 29256]

7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This is honestly the only thing that makes sense.  Why else would they have sold their souls?  Do they just like the dotard that much?  Come on man.  All signs point to the NRA and Russian influence.  Connect the fucking dots.  

What souls?

[RomaVicta 29793]

The Russians supported Trump to generate more chaos. I doubt they knew he would win the electoral vote.

If you accept the premise that the GOP, which refuses to punish Moscow, refuses to protect our elections from Moscow, have been recorded alluding to Russian money, and are beneficiaries of NRA money is criminally compromised (I do), then it makes sense that Russian money was flowing for the GOP rather than merely for Trump.

I think and have written that the GOP sticks by Trump because he is a threat to be the undoing of their criminal organization. The lock-step regular GOPs could be relied upon to keep quiet, take the money, maintain power by whatever means, and help the billionaires and pseudo billionaires maintain dirty relationships with the oligarchs.

Trump gets elected and threatens to blow up the whole thing through bumbling into prosecution and investigation. The GOP must prevent this. Moscow Mitch and the GOP senate are the firewall. Trump may be telling the GOP that if he goes down for this so will they.

Even GOP senators who didn't knowingly take Russian money are forced to go along to avoid being ousted or jailed.

I have little doubt that this is why suddenly wealthy Kavanaugh was rammed through the Senate. The other tidbits about Supreme Court Justices acquiring wealth is also suspicious if not conclusive. Kavanaugh and friends are there to handle this crisis not Roe v Wade. The GOP doesn't care about abortion beyond using the issue to flog votes from the religious right.

I'd love to be proven wrong and laughed out of the room, but, to me, it all makes a horrifying sense.

Edited August 9, 2019 by RomaVicta
Paragraph structure, man! Paragraph structure!

[hayden_horn 11360]

remember this?

oh right, yeah. 

feels like five years ago, right? nope, just last year. no big deal, just after another mass shooting.

ho hum another day in america it's back to school time, get your kids some bullet proof backpacks!

Edited August 9, 2019 by hayden_horn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

37 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

that russian nra money tho

(seriously, my tin foil hat firmly in place, i believe that republican politicians support trump (or retire) because of that dark, dirty, nra russian money)

It’s obvious at this point.  The only thing we’re missing is financial records tracing the money through shell companies and front men.  

What we know:  

The Russian government infiltrated the NRA.  The Kremlin point man was Alexander Torshin, a billionaire oligarch with deep ties to transnational organized crime. 

The NRA has inexplicable leverage over the Republican Party through bribery and blackmail.

And by blackmail I mean if you buck the NRA then the NRA will end your political career, probably with tangential help from Russia’s agents of influence. 

 

[Anastasis 23395]

42 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You literally saw one surly poster chiming in with big tech words and you've taken that as proof that there is nothing there.  

Me personally?  I wouldn't know anything about servers one way or the other. 

What I "literally" did was read analysis of the specific topic written by individuals knowledgeable about cybersecurity and shit that is otherwise way over my head. Some of those analyses were posted here and discussed previously. Non-technical articles were also posted. But yes, another poster here who appears knowledgeable of the subject matter tried to explain it to you without using "big tech words" when you asked them to. Unfortunately, that poster appears to have been wasting his time sharing subject matter knowledge in this thread. Even after all of this, the FBI investigated the claim after Simpson and Steele lifted the server conspiracy from an American reporter and fed it to the FBI via their back channels at State and DOJ. Mueller must be hiding the secret knowledge from all of us. It's amazing that people are still fixing to this shit.

 

 

 

 

[jimmyjazz 45560]

15 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What I "literally" did was read analysis of the specific topic written by individuals knowledgeable about cybersecurity and shit that is otherwise way over my head. Some of those analyses were posted here and discussed previously. Non-technical articles were also posted. But yes, another poster here who appears knowledgeable of the subject matter tried to explain it to you without using "big tech words" when you asked them to. Unfortunately, that poster appears to have been wasting his time sharing subject matter knowledge in this thread. Even after all of this, the FBI investigated the claim after Simpson and Steele lifted the server conspiracy from an American reporter and fed it to the FBI via their back channels at State and DOJ. Mueller must be hiding the secret knowledge from all of us. It's amazing that people are still fixing to this shit.

 

 

 

 

It's amazing that you default to Mueller hiding secret knowledge.  At least I think that's what you're saying.  You write with such vebosity and lack of clarity -- it's a tactic, I guess -- that nobody ever knows what the fuck you're advocating, other than "both sides"  (LOLOLOL).

[wildcat09 29256]

I love Anastasis' focus on debunking the alfa server theory, as if that debunks everything else. Remember when Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort conspired with agents acting on behalf of the Russian government?  That was a thing that happened. It was a thing Jr. publicly admitted to. We don't need to be tracing DNS logs or whateverthefuck (I'm basically illiterate at this shit so if that sounds dumb I don't really care) to figure out whether they conspired, we know they did. What we don't know are some of the details.

[Biff Tannen 45495]

How about just this little fucking tidbit that I can't believe didn't sink this entire thing:

Quote

“Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it,” Mr. Sater wrote in an email. “I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process.”

Felix Sater to Michael Cohen

 

HOW DID NOTHING COME OF THIS?

[Anastasis 23395]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

I love Anastasis' focus on debunking the alfa server theory, as if that debunks everything else.

JFC. Hugo highlighted the server conspiracy from the 302s, I did a "not this shit again", and then when other posters ran with it as well, pointed out that it is a debunked conspiracy theory.  You still have posters here clinging to it, but it is somehow my focus and an angle of deflection. OK.

[Anastasis 23395]

19 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's amazing that you default to Mueller hiding secret knowledge.  At least I think that's what you're saying.  You write with such vebosity and lack of clarity -- it's a tactic, I guess -- that nobody ever knows what the fuck you're advocating, other than "both sides"  (LOLOLOL).

Amazing. 

[hayden_horn 11360]

 

also:

i think we are really close to solving this server thing. i'll just create a gui interface with visual basic to track an ip

Edited August 9, 2019 by hayden_horn

[triplehorn 2664]

44 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What I "literally" did was read analysis of the specific topic written by individuals knowledgeable about cybersecurity and shit that is otherwise way over my head. Some of those analyses were posted here and discussed previously. Non-technical articles were also posted. But yes, another poster here who appears knowledgeable of the subject matter tried to explain it to you without using "big tech words" when you asked them to. Unfortunately, that poster appears to have been wasting his time sharing subject matter knowledge in this thread. Even after all of this, the FBI investigated the claim after Simpson and Steele lifted the server conspiracy from an American reporter and fed it to the FBI via their back channels at State and DOJ. Mueller must be hiding the secret knowledge from all of us. It's amazing that people are still fixing to this shit.

yeah, that's not debunking.  All those examples are "fails to prove," which is not the same.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Amazing. 

Yes, amazing.

[Mdhorn 5911]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

The Russians supported Trump to generate more chaos. I doubt they knew he would win the electoral vote.

If you accept the premise that the GOP, which refuses to punish Moscow, refuses to protect our elections from Moscow, have been recorded alluding to Russian money, and are beneficiaries of NRA money is criminally compromised (I do), then it makes sense that Russian money was flowing for the GOP rather than merely for Trump.

I think and have written that the GOP sticks by Trump because he is a threat to be the undoing of their criminal organization. The lock-step regular GOPs could be relied upon to keep quiet, take the money, maintain power by whatever means, and help the billionaires and pseudo billionaires maintain dirty relationships with the oligarchs.

Trump gets elected and threatens to blow up the whole thing through bumbling into prosecution and investigation. The GOP must prevent this. Moscow Mitch and the GOP senate are the firewall. Trump may be telling the GOP that if he goes down for this so will they.

Even GOP senators who didn't knowingly take Russian money are forced to go along to avoid being ousted or jailed.

I have little doubt that this is why suddenly wealthy Kavanaugh was rammed through the Senate. The other tidbits about Supreme Court Justices acquiring wealth is also suspicious if not conclusive. Kavanaugh and friends are there to handle this crisis not Roe v Wade. The GOP doesn't care about abortion beyond using the issue to flog votes from the religious right.

I'd love to be proven wrong and laughed out of the room, but, to me, it all makes a horrifying sense.

I dunno, when Trump said that if Hillary wins, the election was rigged explains that he rigged the election.  Every accusation is a confession. 

[jimmyjazz 45560]

New surly slogan:  confirmation bias is a thing

[wildcat09 29256]

I haven't really kept up all that well with this thread, is Anastasis still pretending that the IG report is going to prove a bunch of gross misconduct in the FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

27 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

How about just this little fucking tidbit that I can't believe didn't sink this entire thing:

Felix Sater to Michael Cohen

 

HOW DID NOTHING COME OF THIS?

It’s in the Mueller report along with many more otherwise political career ending malfeasances. 

No one cares.  

This is our concern dude. 

[retread 2951]

An impeachment hearing could amplify all of these facts that are just meaningless sound bytes for average Americans. Not sure it will matter even then.

[Anastasis 23395]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

I haven't really kept up all that well with this thread, is Anastasis still pretending that the IG report is going to prove a bunch of gross misconduct in the FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign?

 

 

 

What I do think [the OIG] will report is that the FISA Page application took a non-standard path outside the typical FBI processes and procedures.  That there should have been greater transparency wrt the origins of Steele's material, and that there were irregularities around the entrance of the Steele materials into the FBI and his continuing engagement even after his formal relationship with the FBI was closed (e.g. perkins coie Baker interactions, Corn Baker back channel, Gaeta Steele conduit, and the Ohr back channel, etc.). ...[A]ll of this stuff is already in publicly released testimony. I think it will be critical of the Steele materials. Auditors gonna audit. This type of shit is a slam dunk unless it gets ruled out of scope or redacted for some reason. As with the Clinton investigation OIG report, I think that he will stop short of suggesting political bias influenced any of the decisions. Nor do I think that he will address other aspects alluded to by FBI agents in their "private" communications, such as the CIA leaking re: the Russia investigation. 

Edited August 9, 2019 by Anastasis

[wildcat09 29256]

Quote

and that there were irregularities around the entrance of the Steele materials into the FBI and his continuing engagement

What does this even mean?  What would be a "regular" way for evidence of a potential crime to "enter" the FBI?

[Anastasis 23395]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

What does this even mean?  What would be a "regular" way for evidence of a potential crime to "enter" the FBI?

From Baker's House testimony. 

Mr. Meadows. Yeah, but Jim, don't you see how that -- this unique
situation where you actually took, according to your words, you took
possession of evidence. Do you normally take possession of evidence? 
COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
98
Mr. Baker. No.
Mr. Meadows. Why would you take possession of evidence here?
Why would you not have said, You know what, Peter Strzok is lead
investigator. Let me have him reach out to you?
Why would you take possession of that evidence?
Mr. Baker. Well, on the one -- so, on the one hand, I wasn't -- I
don't remember -- I don't remember knowing why Michael Sussman, for
example, was coming into the office. He came into --
Mr. Meadows. I am not asking about his motivations. I am asking
why, why -- you know, this is not your first rodeo.
Mr. Baker. Yeah.
Mr. Meadows. You are an experienced -- in fact, when I read the
stuff, I try to figure out whether you are a good guy or a bad guy,
because there are times when I can make the case for both.
I mean, just bluntly, reading through this stuff, it sounds like
at times you are telling him to be cautious and other times, you are
telling him to go for it. And I am just trying to get to the truth
there. And that is just being blunt, and I find that that is the best
way to be in these situations.
But I am troubled by abnormal activity that a seasoned general
counsel for the FBI takes possession of evidence from what is obviously
a political -- has political connections.
Why would you take possession of that in this unique situation?
Mr. Baker. Sussman showed up and I didn't know what he was
showing up with. He handed me materials. And so --
COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
99
Mr. Meadows. So he showed up unannounced without --
Mr. Baker. No, no. He did not show up -- he made an appointment.
Mr. Meadows. And he made an appointment. Did he tell you what
he was coming over with?
Mr. Baker. I can't remember that. I don't think he did, because
when he showed up with materials --
Mr. Meadows. Because I got something you need to see?
Mr. Baker. Yeah. I want to come in and talk to you about
something. And I knew Michael, and it sounded serious. And so I am
like, okay, I am not going to turn away somebody that wants to come
and talk to me.
Mr. Meadows. But, again, the FBI headquarters is not a big place.
Why didn't you just say, great, Michael, I will tell you what, let me
call the lead investigator up and bring him in.
I mean, do you not see why it would be troubling to a guy like
me to say this is abnormal, why would you do this uniquely?
Mr. Baker. All I can tell you, Congressman, is that he gave the
material to me, and as soon as he left, I called the investigator -- I
don't know if it was Pete Strzok or Bill Priestap -- I called one of
those guys, to the best of my recollection, and said this just happened.
What do you want to do this about? Please come and get this --
Mr. Meadows. And you described what was in the document?
Mr. Baker. Describe what happened. And I wanted -- I got rid
of the material as quickly as I could and put it into their hands.
Mr. Meadows. Did you describe the document to them? 
COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
100
Mr. Baker. I described what he had told me about the document,
because I don't think I read through it. I just, based on what he told
me, I knew that I had to alert other people promptly to what this was.
Mr. Meadows. And so within hours, not days.
Mr. Baker. Within minutes.
Mr. Meadows. Within minutes. And --
Mr. Baker. I at least reached out for him. I don't know if I
literally --
Mr. Meadows. So you don't, so you don't recall whether it was
Bill Priestap or Peter Strzok or whom else?
How many other people did you give it to?
Mr. Baker. No, no, it was -- I only had one set of the
materials -- we will talk about the Sussman materials -- I only had
one set of those materials. And I put them in the hands of somebody
in the counterintelligence division.
Now, I think I talked to Priestap. He may have told me to get
to it Agent X, or somebody. I mean, I may have walked it down there.
I don't remember. Or he may have sent somebody to get it, but I quickly
got it out of my hands and into the counterintelligence division.
Mr. Meadows. So was there a followup interview with the person
that gave -- that you gave it to with the person that gave you the
information with the attorney?
Mr. Baker. Did they interview the attorney?
Mr. Meadows. Yeah.
Mr. Baker. I don't recall that. 
COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
101
Mr. Meadows. Do you not find that curious? I mean, here is the
thing, is you are getting information that is coming from someone who
is being paid, probably, by a political operative, and the veracity
of that information should be, at least, acknowledged or tried to be
verified, wouldn't you think?
Mr. Baker. Oh, absolutely. And we were --
Mr. Meadows. So why would they not have had an interview with
that individual? Were you the go-between so that they didn't have to
have that?
Mr. Baker. No, no. After the --
Mr. Meadows. How do you know that?
Mr. Baker. Well, they -- maybe I misunderstood your question.
I don't recall myself participating in an interview with Michael
with the FBI present. I don't recall facilitating that.
Mr. Meadows. Yeah. Are you aware of any interview that they had
with, you know --
Mr. Baker. I am not aware of that.
Mr. Meadows. I am not either. I mean, we have gone through it.
Wouldn't you find that finding the source of this evidence and
the veracity of it and where it came from and how legitimate it is,
would you not think that that would be a question that the FBI would
normally want to ask and have answered?
Mr. Baker. My understanding was that the counterintelligence
division did extensive investigation of that material with a --
Mr. Meadows. But not of the individual? 
COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
102
So what if that individual actually engaged in an illegal act in
order to get that information?
Mr. Baker. It is logical to me that we would go back and interview
them --
Mr. Meadows. It is logical to me, too.
Mr. Baker. That it wasn't done --
Mr. Meadows. And it is troubling to me that it didn't happen.
Mr. Baker. I am not sure that I knew that it didn't happen until
now.
Mr. Meadows. Okay.
Mr. Baker. Once I passed it off, it was --
Mr. Meadows. So let me ask you this. This unusual way that a
couple of pieces of evidence from David Corn and from the attorney at
Perkins Coie got into the FBI was unusual.
Were you aware of the unusual steps that the FBI was using with
regards to Bruce Ohr and other information coming in after the November
elections?
Were you aware that there was a back channel through Bruce Ohr
who would interview with Christopher Steele and Glen Simpson and then
communicate that information to Joe Pientka who would get it to Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page.
Were you aware of that?
Mr. Baker. I don't remember the details as you just described
them.
I was aware -- I heard in briefings, conversations, about the 
COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
103
FBI's interactions with Bruce Ohr. But they weren't something that
I focused on --
Mr. Meadows. What were the nature of those briefings?
Mr. Baker. I beg your pardon?
Mr. Meadows. What were the nature of those briefings.
Mr. Baker. These were the sort of the regular briefings that we
would have for the Director, for the Deputy Director, the other
leadership, by the team that would come and update us on what is going
on with the case.
Mr. Meadows. So on a regular basis, you were being briefed that
indeed Bruce Ohr was having contacts with these sources and bringing
it into the FBI. And you thought that that was appropriate?
Mr. Baker. I don't remember the specifics of what you just said
being discussed. I remember Bruce's name --
Mr. Meadows. I am not talking about specifics. I mean, I am
talking about -- what I am saying is, you were aware of Bruce Ohr being
involved in evidence collection. Is that correct?
Mr. Baker. I am not sure that I recall that. I don't recall
that. What I --
Mr. Meadows. You are the general counsel, you had to sign off
on stuff. So you are saying that you did not know that? Because either
way is troubling.
But you are saying -- you are giving -- your testimony here today
is that you did not know that Bruce Ohr was having regular contacts
with sources and conveying that information to the FBI? 
COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
104
Mr. Baker. I was aware that Bruce Ohr had some type of
relationship with the source, and that somehow through that mechanism,
the details of which I did not know, information was flowing to the
FBI. From the source through Bruce to the FBI.
Mr. Meadows. So what you are saying is --
Mr. Baker. -- or directly from the source.
Mr. Meadows. I am sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. Go ahead.
Mr. Baker. Sorry. At some point in time, it became -- my
understanding was it kind of came in both ways.
Bruce and -- was providing information from the source and the
source eventually was providing it directly to the FBI or something
like that. I didn't, myself, understand the specifics of how that was
exactly working.
Mr. Meadows. But as general counsel, would that not be under your
purview to oversee?
I mean, would you not have a concern with protocol, and all of
a sudden, you have got the DOJ doing the investigation? I mean, why
would the DOJ be doing the investigation and not the FBI?
Mr. Baker. It was my understanding that some -- Bruce had some
type of pre-existing relationship with the source. That is what I
understood at the time.
Mr. Meadows. And so because of a personal contact, the FBI made
a conscious decision to allow that to happen?
Mr. Baker. I guess you would say, I guess the answer is yes. The
FBI leadership was aware of the relationship between --
COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
105
[12:48 p.m.]
Mr. Meadows. So who at DOJ was aware of that?
Mr. Baker. I don't know.
Mr. Meadows. So you are using DOJ officials without the
knowledge of the hierarchy at DOJ? That seems strange. Why would you
do that? Is that the normal way that you would conduct an
investigation?
Mr. Baker. No, it is not normal, but I did not know --
Mr. Meadows. Have you ever known it to happen before?
Mr. Baker. Not that I can think of.
Mr. Meadows. And so let me ask you this, Christopher Steele's
relationship was closed by the FBI, was it not?
Mr. Baker. That is my understanding.
Mr. Meadows. And why was it closed?
Mr. Baker. I think it was because he was not following direction.
Mr. Meadows. All right. And so so it was closed for cause?
Mr. Baker. Yes, I guess you would say that.
Mr. Meadows. So you are saying that you used an informant, and
they were closed for cause, and yet, now you are aware that they were
now using another way to use that same informant after they have been
closed for cause?
Mr. Baker. I am saying that I don't know exactly what the nature
and scope of the interactions between Bruce Ohr, Christopher Steele,
and the FBI were. I just don't know all the details of that. I am
sorry.
COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
106
Mr. Meadows. I understand you don't know the details, but we have
got your name on emails where honestly where you were copied on
information, so to say that you didn't have any knowledge it is not
supported by the facts. So you are saying today that you actually had
some knowledge, you just didn't know the details?
Mr. Baker. That is what I am -- that is what I recall right now.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. So as general counsel you have a source that
has been closed for cause, and all the sudden that source gets to
be -- continues to be used not once, not twice, but multiple times after
that. Does that not break FBI-DOJ protocol for how you handle a
confidential human source?
Mr. Baker. I would have to look at the guidelines for --
Mr. Meadows. I have looked at the guidelines. So what would it
surprise you to know that that would be breaking protocol, your own
protocol within the FBI and DOJ? Would it surprise you?
Mr. Baker. It wouldn't surprise me.

[Biff Tannen 45495]

Jim Meadows?  That's who you're hitching your wagon to?  

Any time he speaks, the immediate follow up should be this:

[Anastasis 23395]

6 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Jim Meadows?  That's who you're hitching your wagon to?  

Any time he speaks, the immediate follow up should be this:

I understand this, it is not Meadow's words that I am particularly interested in, but rather Baker's responses.

ETA: Oh, and it's Mark. 

Edited August 9, 2019 by Anastasis

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

Edited August 13, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[TwiceHorn 31282]

On 8/2/2019 at 9:25 AM, wildcat09 said:

This is all absolutely 100% correct but Comey should still spend every moment of the rest of his life hating himself for being such a pussy that he had to abandon standard protocol to placate an anticipated right-wing backlash.

Thing is, I don't think he was being a pussy.  He was trying to elevate his own profile and engender the loyalty of those he thought could help his political career.  Two-times, two-times.