The FBI lawyer who functioned as a conduit for weak charges against Donald Trump stated on May 19 that he would have behaved differently if he had known the claims were made by Trump’s presidential competitor, Hillary Clinton.

If he had known Michael Sussmann was working for the Clinton campaign, James Baker, who now works for Twitter, claimed he would not have met with him. Sussmann is accused of passing on data that supposedly links Trump’s business to a Russian bank.

On the testimony in federal court in Washington, Baker answered, “I don’t think I would have.”

Knowing the claims were made by Trump’s opponent “would have generated very strong doubts, undoubtedly, about the integrity of the source” and the “veracity of the material,” Baker added. It would have also increased “a significant anxiety in my mind about whether we were going to be played.”

The testimony supports a key point made by special counsel John Durham in his case against Sussmann: that knowing the sources that prompted Sussmann to meet with Baker would have influenced how the FBI analyzed the information, which the bureau ultimately determined did not support the claims of a secret backchannel between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank.

Absent Sussmann’s false statement, the FBI might have taken additional or more incremental steps before opening and/or closing an investigation,” prosecutors said in Sussmann’s indictment.

Sussmann’s claimed falsehood had a “minimal or insignificant” impact, according to defense counsel.

On Sept. 19, 2016, only weeks before the presidential election, Sussmann visited Baker at the FBI lawyer’s office. There were no other people around.

Baker stated on Thursday that if he had known about the Clinton campaign’s participation, he would not have done so. He said he would have probably sent Sussmann to other FBI people—bureau attorneys don’t usually get information—or would have met with Sussmann but made sure other FBI personnel were there.