Meanwhile, Baker was asked if this type of interaction with an outside counsel had ever occurred before. In response, Baker admitted that his interaction with Sussmann was singularly unique:
Mr. Baker: I that that’s correct. Sitting here today, that’s the only one I can remember
Sussmann was never interviewed by the FBI, which Baker also found surprising, noting:
“It is logical to me that we [the FBI] would go back and interview [Sussmann].”
Sussmann WAS interviewed by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Dec. 18, 2017.
Meadows to Baker:
“Everything about this investigation seems to have been done in an abnormal way, the way that you have gotten the information, the way that Strzok got information, the way that Ohr was used, the way that Perkins Coie actually came in and gave you information.”
Baker's Response:
“I had a jaundiced eye about everything, yes. I had skepticism about all this stuff. I was concerned about all of this. This whole situation was horrible, and it was novel and we were trying to figure out what to do, and it was highly unusual.”
Sussmann also pressured the FBI, later telling Baker he was speaking w/NYT.
Mr. Baker: He was the source—he told me the New York Times was aware of this. We, the FBI, went to the New York Times and then started a series of conversations with them to try to get them to slow down.
Sussmann used his personal relationship w/Baker to ensure that his information would receive immediate attention.
You’re the FBI’s general counsel, if you’re getting information from an outside source and passing it on, that means something.”
Durham also notes an email exchange re: the Alfa allegations involving former Perkins Coie attorney Marc Elias and three Clinton campaign officials: communications director Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook, and senior foreign policy advisor Jake Sullivan.
That email exchange w/Elias, Sullivan, Palmieri and Mook re: the now-disproven Alfa Bank allegations took place on Sep. 15, 2016, only four days before Sussmann took the Alfa information to the FBI.
Horowitz informed Durham that in March 2017 Sussmann told an OIG SAG that one of his clients had observed that a specific OIG employee’s computer was “seen publicly” in “Internet traffic” and was connecting to a Virtual Private Network in a foreign country.
3) At the time Horowitz provided this report to Durham on December 17, 2021, Horowitz represented to Durham & team that it had “no other file[s] or other documentation” relating to this cyber matter.
We already knew that Daszak continued his work under his NIH grant until April 2020. May even have gone beyond. This was revealed in Daszak's response letter to NIH. See below.
The 2018 proposal, provided by DRASTIC, is separate (technically) from Daszak's NIH-funded work.
2018 proposal (funding denied) contained remarkable similarities to Covid pandemic but the Murphy report needs more vetting from what I've seen. theepochtimes.com/research-propo…
As noted last night, it's entirely possible there's conflation between Dasak's NIH-funded work & his 2018 proposal.
It's also possible that Veritas report is correct but we need more.
Seems almost too neat, too perfect. Raises questions.
This details how Fauci & other scientists tried to shape the narrative of a NASEM response to the White House in Feb 2020.
2 days after Fauci was told it was a lab leak, his group pushed Natural Origin narrative that was written SAME day as Fauci call. theepochtimes.com/behind-the-sce…
There was a very direct and orchestrated cover-up.
1) Feb 1, 2020 - Fauci told lab leak was 70-80% likely
2) 1st draft of Proximal Origin completed same day
3) Feb 3, 2020 - Fauci presents to NASEM. Daszak & Andersen there