Open/Close Menu وکیل | مشاوره رایگان | وکالت | وکیل آنلاین

James Baker, a former adviser to the FBI (and now Twitter’s lawyer), has long been a source of criticism for critics of the FBI’s role in promoting allegations of collusion in Russia. Baker did not help himself to those critics yesterday when he took a stand at the trial of Michael Sussman, a former Clinton campaign adviser. After announcing Sussman’s friendship, Baker seemed to ignore the fact that he had not previously been able to hand over an important piece of evidence to Special Investigator John Durham because “this is not my investigation. “This is your research.”

Susman faces charges under 18 USC 1001 for lying to the FBI during a meeting with Baker.

At Crime declaration, Sasman accused of “Mac[ing] A statement or representation that is materially incorrect, fabricated or fraudulent, “said Baker. Durham argued that “the defendant provided the alleged data and the ‘white paper’ to the AFBI adviser, which apparently showed a secret communication channel between the Trump administration and a Russian-based bank.”

Sassman’s choice of Baker came as no surprise to critics who have long viewed the former adviser as one of the officials who facilitated Russia’s collusion claims.

On May 4, 2018, Baker resigned from the FBI and joined the Brookings Institution as a colleague. Brookings also played a prominent role in developing the allegation of collusionQ and later Joined Twitter as a top lawyer And it has been criticized for playing a role in a strong censorship program that targets conservatives and others.

At the booth, Baker explained that he was still a friend of Michael Sussman, whom he had met during his time at the Department of Justice.

The most notable statement in the testimony came after Baker was asked about the late delivery of a key document. A text message from Sassman before meeting them made it clear that Sussman had denied any contact with Baker on behalf of any customer. He represented the Clinton campaign and devoted time to the campaign:

Jim – Michael Sussman. I have a time-sensitive (and sensitive) issue that I need to discuss. Are you available for a short meeting tomorrow? I come myself – not on behalf of a client or company – I want to help the office. Thanks.”

The DOJ released exhibitions showing Susmann's texts to the FBI Baker

As I It has been discussed beforeWas the bomb text for the case, which was in direct contradiction to Sussman’s claim that Baker had simply misinterpreted their conversation.

Baker was asked why, despite a lengthy investigation into Sussman, he never informed Special Investigator John Durham of the text. In fact, he did not hand over the text after Sasman was charged on September 16.

Baker’s response was: “To be honest – I’m not out to get Michael and this is not my research. “This is your research.”

It’s a lot like “Why should I help you?” Even using it as a conduit for a baseless allegation by a campaign did not seem to motivate Baker to actively seek any evidence at his disposal. The telephone used by Baker at the Department of Justice was reportedly handed over to the Inspector General Baker admitted that the information was in the cloud and was later able to locate it. The question, however, is how this connection to a key issue under consideration can ignore Baker’s mind or attention given in previous interviews and testimonies.

Baker said he found the message in March and delivered it to his lawyer. This seems to be a late discovery. Alfa Bank has been under scrutiny for years, including extensive congressional research, Müller research, and Durham research. However, Baker had not previously investigated his interactions with Clinton’s adviser, his involvement in the Steel case, or Alfa Bank allegations?

Baker Specifically testified in 2018 On Russian collusion allegations about the Trump organization and campaign. This included extensive questions about his interaction with Sasman. At the hearing, Baker told Congress That he “does not remember” that Sasman had said that he represented someone in the meeting, even if he had a text that explicitly stated that he was not representing the campaign or anyone else in the meeting. In fact, Baker testified: “I do not remember knowing why Michael ساسمن“For example, he was entering the office.”

Even if Baker still believes he did not know Sussman was working for Clinton during the Clinton meeting, it was clear early in the investigation that Sussman and his Perkins Coie partner, Mark Elias, were accused of misrepresenting Russian campaign collusion.

Baker, however, Apparently he left that question aside “I’m not out to catch Michael, and this is not my research,” he testified. “This is your research. If you ask me a question, I will answer it.”

In fact, this is the investigation of the US Department of Justice, where Baker held a high position.

The testimony gave the impression that Baker intended to cooperate, but it can hardly be expected that he would seek the assistance of the Department of Justice in proving a possible crime by a Clinton campaign adviser. He asserted that his confession had been obtained through torture and that his confession had been obtained through torture. I will go to this content. “

“I wanted to get it out of my hands as soon as possible and get it to the agents,” Baker told Congress when he received information from Sussman. He does not seem to have applied the criteria he had for the evidence he had that were useful for Durham’s research on the Clinton campaign.

This is not just Baker’s job. After all, this is not his research.

Write a comment:


Your email address will not be published.