|
|
Post by jamshundred on Apr 9, 2019 20:52:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Apr 10, 2019 20:23:27 GMT
Mr. Baker. So I recalled after -- just actually a few days
ago -- that another incident when a -- this time an attorney on behalf
of a client came to me and wanted -- came specifically to me and wanted
to make information available to the FBI in the form of electronic media
that he wanted to get into the --
Mr. Jordan. Different case or same case?
Mr. Baker. Different case.
Mr. Jordan. Okay.
Mr. Baker. Well, a completely different case. Different
attorney, different client, but insistent on meeting only with me or
the Director. And then he did not have the material with him at the
time. We had to actually dispatch FBI agents to go to a -- from a field
office to go collect this material. It was in the -- to the best of
4
my recollection, it was roughly in the late summer, fall of 2016
timeframe.
Mr. Jordan. Can you tell us the case?
Mr. Baker. It was Larry --
Mr. Mr. Baker, please do answer the question, but if
it's in a -- if it's a matter that's totally unrelated to what's being
discussed here, I'd ask you not to discuss any specific investigative
details. Can you answer the question?
Mr. Baker. Can I give the name of the attorney?
Mr. The name of the -- absolutely. Yes, sir.
Mr. Baker. Okay. The name of the attorney was Larry Klayman,
and he also brought one of his associates with him whose name I don't
recall at this point in time, and it was on behalf of a particular
client. Anyway, that's what I recalled. And we were talking about
that last time, and I did not remember that incident. Now I do.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. Thank you. Let's go back to Mr. McCabe, Ms.
Page, and --
Mr. Breitenbach. I'm sorry, Mr. Jordan. Can I just follow up?
Mr. Jordan. Sure.
Mr. Breitenbach. With regard to Mr. Klayman coming to visit you,
was it with regard at all to surveillance concerns that he had
concerning the general fact pattern that we're here to discuss today?
Mr. Baker. Well, it had to do with surveillance. It had to do
with an allegation about unlawful surveillance, but it was -- I believe
it was different from any fact pattern that we talked about last time
5
here.
Mr. Breitenbach. Unlawful surveillance of whom?
Mr. Baker. Of Americans, including government officials.
Yeah. I can go -- I mean --
Mr. Jordan. Who was his client?
Mr. Baker. Can I just -- I'm turning to the Bureau to describe
this. So his client was an individual named Dennis Montgomery, who
I believe, to the best of my recollection, he said that he had been
a U.S. Government contractor and, in the course of that work, had come
across evidence of unlawful surveillance by the government of
Americans -- and including government officials -- and wanted to give
that information to the Bureau, which eventually did take place.
Mr. Jordan. And was this -- I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Mr. Sommers. During what time period?
Mr. Jordan. Yeah. That's what I was going to ask.
Mr. Baker. To the best of my recollection, it's in the late
summer, early fall 2016.
Mr. Sommers. And the surveillance, what time period was that?
Mr. Baker. I'm not entirely sure what the timeframe was. It was
a significant -- it was -- one of the issues in the case was it was
a large amount of data that he had that he wanted to provide, that
these -- these disks or other media had a lot of data on them about
this, allegedly.
Mr. Sommers. Surveillance by whom?
Mr. Baker. By the U.S. Government itself of Americans,
6
unlawfully.
Mr. Jordan. Interesting. All right. Thank you. All right.
Let's go back to the McCabe-Page-Rosenstein meeting.
When did you talk to Lisa Page and Andy McCabe about the meeting
they had with Mr. Rosenstein?
Mr. Baker. I don't remember the particular date. I believe it
was shortly after they had met with the Deputy Attorney General, and
this was in the days immediately after Director Comey was fired, which
I'm drawing a blank on right now.
Mr. Jordan. Just to be clear, then, was it minutes after the
meeting, hours after the meeting, or days after the meeting?
Mr. Baker. I believe it was the day after.
Mr. Jordan. The day after?
Mr. Baker. I think so.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. So was that --
Mr. Baker. I believe there were a couple of different meetings,
and they -- I believe there were a couple of different meetings, and
each time, I think, it was the day after because I believe the meetings
went late into the evening. That's to the best of my recollection.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. And is it your understanding that there were
multiple meetings that Mr. McCabe, Ms. Page, Mr. Rosenstein had about
the potential of recording the President?
Mr. Baker. I don't know. I know that they had multiple meetings
with the Deputy Attorney General discussing a lot of things in the
immediate aftermath of the firing, and I don't specifically remember
7
how many times this was discussed.
Mr. Jordan. So, just to be clear, the firing of Mr. Comey took
place on May 9th, and then the hiring of the special counsel took place
on May 17th. So these numerous meetings and the one you had with
Mr. McCabe and Ms. Page took place between the 9th and the 17th?
Mr. Baker. I believe that's correct.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. All right. And you said you took it -- you
took it as serious. When they presented it to you, their recollection
or their recalling to you what took place in the meeting with
Mr. Rosenstein about recording the President and talk about the 25th
Amendment, you took it as serious?
Mr. Baker. I took it seriously because my assessment was that
they took it seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Apr 10, 2019 20:32:14 GMT
Mr. Meadows. Prior to the appointment of the special prosecutor,
as late as May of 2017, we've had other witnesses that have suggested
that they could not prove collusion between the Trump campaign and the
Russians as late as May of 2017. Is that your understanding?
Mr. Baker. I've heard press reports to that effect, or seen press
reports to that effect.
Mr. Meadows. Do you have any evidence to the contrary that you
observed personally in your official capacity?
Mr. Baker. So the difficulty I'm having with your question is,
what does "collusion" mean, and what does "prove" mean? And so I don't
know how to respond to that.
|
|
