THREAD: So, yesterday I spent digging more on the phones FBI got access to. I've been trying to figure out what Durham's other investigation was that led to the mention of the phones. At first I assumed it was a leak investigation b/c Sessions was AG at that time. 1/
2/ And Sessions started a record number of leak investigations. But then I started to re-read a couple key things. foxnews.com/politics/sessi…
3/ And then this a.m. @15poundstogo added a key detail. oig.justice.gov/reports/2018/i… This report addressed the missing Strzok/Page text messages.
4/ Key here is that OIG asked FBI for Strzok and Page's phones in late January. 
5/ That meshes with what I was focusing on yesterday which was the @JudicialWatch FOIA. Summary here, but a link to the 87 pages provided included. (Relevant screen grabs later).
6/ So after reviewing the OIG report I then re-re-re-read the Friday supplemental filing. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
7/ As I've already noted yesterday in a different thread the OIG NEVER said it told Durham OR anyone working on that investigation it had or was getting Baker's cell phone.
https://twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1488155965774086145
8/ If Durham was investigating Baker that would have come up and they would have had notes on it AND Durham would have actually taken possession of the cell phone. But re-read these two paragraphs:
9/ When I re-re-re-read those passages it seems that the mention of the cell phones was tangential because no mention was made of WHOSE cell phone they were requesting access too and no mention is made of OIG providing Durham's team phone OR report which if relevant to
10/ Durham's then current investigation OIG would have done; Durham would have requested; OIG would know for a fact they told Durham we have Baker's cell phone and that they absolutely discussed having cell phones with Durham.
11/ Why didn't this come up? Because the FBI taking possession of the cell phones was tangential to whatever Durham was investigating. So why didn't Durham ask for Baker's cell phone before charging Sussman?
12/ SC team didn't know Baker's phone existed. We know this both from Durham saying it but also from this tidbit. Note the language "in an effort to obtain information about call log data for the former FBI General Counsel."
13/ I had wrongly thought that SC was trying to get call logs, but as @DawsonSField pointed out yesterday, they were seeking "information about call log data."
https://twitter.com/DawsonSField/status/1488171689447985154So they had the data & didn't have phones.
14/ Was it sloppy? I don't think so--rather I'd hazzard no mention was made of Baker's phones existing even in meeting with Durham's prosecution team's meeting re Sussmann case with OIG, which is one point of this piece. thefederalist.com/2022/01/31/spe…
15/ And here, circle back to the supplemental filing: It really doesn't sound like the phones were key to that investigation by Durham's team. Again, if they were, Durham would have taken posession of them & notes would have clearly shown they discussed Baker's.
16/ This entire exercise though raises a more interesting question regarding the "wiping" of phones. Remember, it was late January when OIG got the Strzok/Page phones. But as of 2/9, OIG had "requested" FBI phones--not yet received. And didn't get Baker's until 2/15.
17/ which brings us to the @JudicialWatch FOIA. Documents here file:///C:/Users/margo/Downloads/JW-v-DOJ-Mueller-Strzok-Page-Texts-02693%20(2).pdf. Go to page 51 and check out dates.
18/ Two potentially significant points: I think the phones OIG asked for were related to this OIG investigation and not anything Durham was doing. Second, amazing how after 2/9 request for phones & getting Page/Strzok in late January so many people forgot their passwords!
19/ But not William Barnett. He just heard everyone joking about wiping the phones.
20/ So bottom line take-aways:
a) FBI cell phones were likely unrelated to Durham's 2018 investigation.
b) Issue isn't Durham, it's OIG not cooperating.
And most significant:
a) FBI cell phones were likely unrelated to Durham's 2018 investigation.
b) Issue isn't Durham, it's OIG not cooperating.
And most significant:
21/ Did Mueller's team intentionally wipe phones once OIG got Pages/Strzok in late January & requested others in February (but didn't take possession of them until later)? There's a reason when an executive if fired, they do it "live" in "office" and immediately take
22/ possession of employee's phone, computer, and have security walk the person off premises. Unfortunately it will be difficult (impossible?) to prove intentionally wiped phones. I'd love to get data from Apple though if phones ever previously reset b/c of forgotten password.
23/23 I'd wager first time was after OIG got Strzok/Page's phones and asked for other FBI phones. END Okay team, tear this apart and let me know what I missed, got wrong, etc. GO.
Post-Twit: Sorry, here's the link to the FOIA documents. judicialwatch.org/documents/jw-v…
PPPT: Another point to consider: This indictment when it did b/c of statute of limitation about to run out. So maybe further chats would have occurred before indictment leading to phones if they had time. But Durham knows now!
RE-TREAD OF THREAD: So folks have been doing some great digging on this. Read this.
https://twitter.com/TheLastRefuge2/status/1043365643876265984
What seems "problematic" to me is that if Durham was investigating Baker at time OIG told AUSA it had requested from FBI phones, why didn't they specifically mention having Baker's cell phone AND why didn't they give them to Durham? OR
And if Durham wasn't investigating Baker at the time, once he starting investigaing Baker why didn't the OIG agent helping Durham provide the phones. We know they didn't b/c OIG's only beef was we likely mentioned phones in Feb. 2018. The entire phone issue makes no sense.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
