Catherine Herridge Highlights More Info in the IG Report That Doesn't Look Good For Comey and Others

FBI Director James Comey, testifies before a House Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee budget hearing about the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s FY 2017 budget, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 25, 2016. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

 

When investigative reporter Catherine Herridge moved from Fox News to CBS, many were concerned that her great reporting and incisive investigative efforts might be stifled.

Fortunately, that doesn’t appear to be the case.

She’s quickly becoming known for her “highlighter reports” on Twitter. On the IG report she previously noted that yes, there were “confidential human sources” who were wired deployed against the Trump team.

In her latest series of tweets, she highlights several parts of the IG report that are problematic for former FBI Director James Comey as well as potentially for others.

Herridge points out how Comey told President Donald Trump the “FBI didn’t know if Steele allegations true,” and “FBI not investigating them.”

But in fact the FBI had been investigating the allegations and they had good reason to know they likely weren’t true by January 2017. So basically, if this is true, James Comey wasn’t telling the truth to the President of the United States.

As Real Clear Investigations notes:

The IG report states that the FBI knew the story was unverified sometime in January 2017.

On Jan. 6 of that month, then-FBI Director James B. Comey told the president-elect about the pee tape in a Trump Tower meeting.

CNN used that meeting three days later as a news hook to report on the dossier, which it had been unable to verify.

Who was behind the push to include it?

Herridge points to the section about Andrew McCabe asking that the dossier be included in their January 2017 ICA on Russia. Why? Because Barack Obama asked for “everything relevant” to be included. Again McCabe tried to argue for its inclusion despite it being unverified, the unreliability and the fact they had reason by then to doubt it.

The FBI may have shared this salacious and debunked report with a foreign government.

So they may have smeared the President of the United States to another government with false information, thus undercutting him in the world’s eyes, while at the same time not telling him the truth? And isn’t that leaking classified information? But Strzok “doesn’t recall?” Is he kidding? How many people did they share it with? Seems that’s something one should remember and/or have notes about.

What happened to the info on Clinton?

It sounds like it was more the FBI that was pushing the inclusion, with the compromise being including it in the appendix.

But as Herridge indicated in a prior report, Durham wanted to talk to former CIA Director John Brennan and former DNI James Clapper, apparently at least over issues surrounding the start of the probe. Durham has made it clear that he believes that it started prior to July 2016. And as we reported a few days ago, Durham is looking to get getting information from Brennan, according to the New York Times.

John H. Durham, the United States attorney leading the investigation, has requested Mr. Brennan’s emails, call logs and other documents from the C.I.A., according to a person briefed on his inquiry. He wants to learn what Mr. Brennan told other officials, including the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, about his and the C.I.A.’s views of a notorious dossier of assertions about Russia and Trump associates. …
Mr. Durham is also examining whether Mr. Brennan privately contradicted his public comments, including May 2017 testimony to Congress, about both the dossier and about any debate among the intelligence agencies over their conclusions on Russia’s interference, the people said.

HT: Twitchy