Thread by @ProfMJCleveland

THREAD: My article linked below hits MANY distinct points, but I wanted to expand on the "wordsmithing" from Friday's document because at first blush the "clarification" came off as an admission Durham had been told OIG had Baker's phone but that is not AT ALL what filing said.1/

https://twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1488136485895352321

2/ Rather, SC ("Special Counsel") merely told court here's what OIG said. SC didn't comment on that or how ridiculous it was but just repeated the claims. SC could have said that is nonsense but didn't. So what did OIG say? NOT that Durham knew about OIT having Baker's

3/ phone. Rather, a) 4 years ago, during another investigation one of our guys (OIG) told one of Durham's attorneys OIG is going to take possession of a bunch of FBI phones. NEVER said he told Durham's guy that included Bakers. Then the bait-and switch:

4/ OIG said that Bakers' phone was one of the phones we took possession of. That made it seem as if OIG told Durham's attorney they took possession of Baker's phone, but the OIG never said that. Then OIG said in a phone conference with our guy that Durham was in our guy likely

5/ mentioned cellphones. First, not even he definitely did, but LIKELY did. But second, OIG did not claim their guy told Durham that included Baker's phone. So Durham repeats the claims but leaves it there & doesn't get into the word games & instead says

6/ not that OIG is full of sh!t, but that I do not remember phones mentioned during that call and I don't remember ever knowing OIG had Baker's phone. But why didn't Durham ask for Baker's phone? B/c OIG was on the SAME FRICKIN' SIDE. SC met with OIG about discoverable

7/ evidence. A cooperative & OIG would have said "oh, we also have two of Baker's cell phones." (Also, that SC was trying to get the LOGS of the calls shows they didn't know OIG had the actual cell phones.) This doesn't reflect poorly on SC--it is devastating indictment of OIG

8/ But the good is that SC now knows it can't trust OIG and needs to ask for things expressly, including what might exist that they didn't know about. Also that OIG did not challenge anything SC said about Sussmann-Joffe-OIG connections & w/holding of evidence on that is

9/9 implied admission that everything OIG said on that front (much more serious!) was accurate. There are several points of huge significance laid out here: thefederalist.com/2022/01/31/spe…