Baker didn’t take the dossier “literally”, worried how Comey appeared

0
James Baker

The rats are leaving the ship! They’re going down!

James Baker almost threw James Comey under the bus on the ‘Skullduggery’ podcast Wednesday. Yahoo News Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman interviewed former FBI bureau chief counsel James Baker about Jim Comey’s actions targeting Donald Trump.

A little background on Isikoff. Isikoff’s report at yahoo news was used in 2016 to get FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign via Carter Page. Isikoff was working covertly for the DNC at the time and his report provided circular confirmation for the garbage dossier. It was supposed to be a second source but it came from the same source.

Baker is reportedly under investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham on behalf of the Department of Justice. That’s why he is scurrying about, going from interview to interview.

BAKER SAID THEY WERE WORRIED IT WOULD LOOK LIKE COMEY WAS BLACKMAILING THE PRESIDENT LIKE J. EDGAR HOOVER WOULD HAVE DONE

When Jim Comey told the President on January 6, 2017, about the Golden Showers report, senior FBI officials were worried it would look like he was blackmailing the President, a tactic often used by J. Edgar Hoover, Baker told the interviewers.

“We were quite worried about the Hoover analogies, and we were determined not to have such a disaster happen on our watch,” Baker said. But they decided they were obliged to tell the President, according to him.

Comparing Comey to Hoover doesn’t look good at all!

About that situation, Comey had said that he wanted to tell the President just enough but not alert him to the investigation. Others believe it was done so it could then be leaked to the media. Brennan and Clapper said Comey insisted the dossier information be included in the intel briefing but Comey put the onus on Brennan.

These people are swamp critters and they are getting worried. They’re trying to cover their butts.

Baker claims he “welcomes the scrutiny” and will cooperate fully with the department.

We’re really sure he “welcomes the scrutiny.” Wouldn’t everyone want to be investigated by a no-nonsense, bulldog prosecutor?

He’s so full of it.

THEY DIDN’T TAKE THE DOSSIER LITERALLY

Now Baker says we took the dossier “seriously” but not necessarily “literally.” What? Shouldn’t that have been reported to the FISA court judge?

“We took it seriously” but “we didn’t necessarily take it literally” and did not treat it as “literally true in every respect.”

Is this inept or corrupt?

Klaidman asked him what steps he took to verify the dossier but he was evasive. Basically, he said mistakes can be made.

“I’m not going to go into details with respect to what investigative steps we actually took to try to validate it. But I guess I would say that the first thing was to come up with an investigative plan for how we would go about validating that, especially with respect to the number of sources and sub-sources that Steele supposedly had according to the dossier and where they were geographically and try to figure out how to do it.”

“It was challenging,” Baker added, noting that validating the information from sources can be challenging and “mistakes can be made.”

They probably didn’t feel the need to validate it since it wasn’t LITERAL!

What a bunch of amateurs.

 

PowerInbox