Comey's sworn testimony to Congress on *why* the FBI decided to open counterintelligence cases on four people in the Trump campaign ("not the campaign itself" says Comey), and *when* they did it, is completely contradicted by the story the FBI told the IG

THREAD https://twitter.com/JohnWHuber/status/1251244517157724160

See this prior thread for the full context about why the FBI's story about how they decided on who to investigate doesn't make any sense: https://twitter.com/JohnWHuber/status/1251244438183084033?s=20

The IG found:

—that Crossfire was opened on July 31 2016, "without identifying any specific subjects or targets"

—The FBI then formed a team, did an "analysis" & "based upon this analysis" opened CI cases on three people around Aug 10 2016

—A fourth (Flynn) was opened Aug 16

Comey: I was briefed at the end of July that all four cases had been opened (this is from his testimony to Congress Dec 7 2018)

Also Comey: "The Trump campaign was not under investigation". In "late July", we opened cases on four Americans to see if they were working with the Russians.

So, did the FBI already have all four targets in mind ( @GeorgePapa19, @carterwpage, @PaulManafort, @GenFlynn) at the end of July when CH was opened, and immediately opened cases on them (and even "briefed" Comey about them)?

OR, did they open Crossfire, form a team, then do an objective analysis on who might be working with the Russians, and only based on a reasonable articulable set of facts, open CI cases on three Americans, and add a fourth later?

Because both of those stories can't be true.

Given these contradictions, it's far more plausible that what really happened is the top echelon of the FBI wanted to investigate the campaign, wanted to investigate certain people in the campaign, and went ahead and did it. Then concocted a cover story afterwards

/ENDS