Highlights From The Jim Baker Transcript

Highlights From The Jim Baker Transcript

Listed below are thirty-two screenshots of the Jim Baker transcript from his testimony before The House Judiciary and Oversight Committees. They appear in chronological order. There are captions below each screenshot (or group of screenshots). Though they are not necessarily bombshells, the overall picture they paint is worth viewing.







Comey and Baker had a long-standing relationship.



Connecting some familiar names (Comey, McCabe, Strzok) and some less familiar names (Moffa, Priestap). 






Baker was aware of the disparaging texts between Strzok and Page. He was alarmed, but not enough to read more than “a few of them.” In Baker’s defense, he points to the IG investigation.




Establishing the assumed veracity and probative value of materials endorsed by the FBI General Counsel.




Jim Baker was directly given “evidence” by at least David Corn (American Journalist, Mother Jones) and Michael Sussman (former attorney for DOJ and Perkins Coie (the DNC’s private law firm)). Consider the deference given to evidence put forward by the FBI General Counsel.



Baker went beyond standard operating procedures.






Connecting those aware of and involved in the investigation.






A general description of the FISA process. Note how intrusive it is. Note what “might call a source’s credibility into question.” Steele was paid and didn’t comply with directions. Note how the department must be satisfied the “source is reliable.” Then, compare that to treatment of Sussman and Corn. 




No interview was conducted of Michael Sussman when he brought the evidence. Not how he got it. Not where it originated. Yet, they were satisfied that a member of the DNC’s private law firm was credible.






Another broken SOP. “I’d have to check the guidelines.” Immediately followed by, “It wouldn’t surprise me” should be alarming. That the FBI General Counsel wouldn’t know or remember such a materially, relevant policy-so recently removed from the unique events of 2016-suggests either dishonesty or negligence. 






One of many examples where Baker is less than forthcoming. This one just so happens to involve Sussman, The New York Times and The DNC’s private law firm.






The dossier was at least “an important part” of the FISA application. He admits a duty to investigate (like he admitted he failed to do earlier with respect to Sussman). And won’t say whether probable cause would’ve been satisfied without the dossier. 






Not only were Rosenstein’s wire-tapping comments real, they were taken seriously by at least three people who continued to have discussions about them. Moreover, soon after Rosenstein wrote the fire Comey memo, Rosenstein already had two cabinet members ready to invoke the 25th amendment? So, Rosenstein suggested that Comey be fired and then pursued the 25th amendment on the grounds that Comey was fired? 








We know beyond any doubt that the FBI was aware of derogatory information regarding Christopher Steele. Yet, the FISA application says the opposite. Baker says “There shouldn’t have been, right, because I believe they would not try to file a false statement with a FISA court….” The main implication of that statement is if they had derogatory information at that time, then they filed a false statement with the FISA court.