No wonder Congressmen Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Mark Meadows (R-NC) were smiling as they addressed reporters last week after the closed-door hearing of former top FBI attorney James Baker. Apparently, Baker was one of the most candid officials from the Obama FBI to testify so far.

On September 22nd, the New York Times reported that, in a private meeting, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had discussed the possibility of forcing President Trump out of office by invoking the 25th amendment and wearing a wire to secretly record their conversations. This meeting was held the day after Trump had fired then-FBI Director James Comey, and the day before Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller to the special counsel. Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and other high-level FBI officials had attended the meeting.

Following the New York Times’ story, an unnamed person who had attended the meeting characterized Rosenstein’s remarks as sarcasm. Rosenstein released a statement saying, "I never pursued or authorized recording the President and any suggestion that I have ever advocated for the removal of the President is absolutely false."

take our poll - story continues below

How have you been greeting people this holiday season?

  • How have you been greeting people this holiday season?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

In the video below, Fox News' Gregg Jarrett, Investigative Reporter Sara Carter and the Hill's John Salomon join Sean Hannity to discuss Rosenstein's expected testimony.

However, according to a Fox News source familiar with Baker’s recent testimony, when Page and McCabe briefed Baker on the meeting, they indicated that Rosenstein had been serious.

Baker also said, “He suspected Rosenstein was coordinating with two people in the administration to invoke the 25th Amendment.” The source added, “Baker, whose testimony was described as deliberate and sober, said he had not done a legal analysis and was unsure whether it was 'unethical or illegal.'”

After the story broke, Trump remained surprisingly unruffled and wisely chose to put off a meeting with Rosenstein until the Kavanaugh confirmation process was over. Obviously, it would not be in Trump’s best interest to fire Rosenstein before the midterms.

The two finally met aboard Air Force One on Monday. “Trump said the conversation was "great," and he has no plans to fire Rosenstein.”

The conflicted and unethical Rosenstein is scheduled to testify before House lawmakers on Thursday in a closed-door hearing. Rosenstein likely has more knowledge of events than nearly anyone else. It is hoped that he will be more cooperative than he was during his open hearing in August when his answers were evasive and his demeanor, defiant. Because Rosenstein has been compromised by the New York Times article, and somewhat marred by James Baker’s testimony, perhaps he will answer questions more truthfully. Whatever he says, President Trump will not make a move until after the midterms.

As I posted last week, Baker provided other “explosive” testimony. Investigators learned that “another source,” whom we have since learned is Michael Sussman, top attorney for the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, had given “Baker documents about Russian election meddling during the 2016 presidential campaign.” Sussman is a partner at Perkins, Coie, the law firm that hired Fusion GPS to create the Trump dossier on behalf of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

Baker also said that Sussman had initiated the contact with him. He told lawmakers “it was unusual that he was contacted by Mr. Sussmann and that the contact occurred before the FBI had applied for the first FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page.”

There is no acceptable reason why a lawyer for the DNC and the Clinton Campaign should meet with the FBI’s top lawyer, and hand over opposition research commissioned by the presidential candidate they represent, in an attempt to damage her opponent. Nor is there an acceptable reason why the FBI would then take that opposition research and use it as the basis for obtaining a FISA warrant to spy on the opponent's low-level campaign advisor. It should come as no surprise to learn that Sussman previously worked for the DOJ, making him part of the nearly impenetrable, incestuous network of Obama era officials who still refuse to accept the fact that Donald Trump won the election.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.