No reporter knows more about the Trump-Russia affair, top to bottom, than Fox News Chief Intelligence Correspondent Catherine Herridge. We go deep into the Little Horowitz Report, on James Comey, and what’s expected in the Big Horowitz Report, on FISA and the beginnings of the Trump-Russia probe. And more importantly, after all the weedy stuff, a look at the big picture: Should the FBI have been doing what it did?

Subscribe to The Byron York Show in iTunes (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in iTunes or by RSS feed.

Please Support Our Sponsor!

There are 8 comments.

  1. OccupantCDN Coolidge

    Good talk. I think the point of the footnotes is to hide the information that the report is supposed to report to the public in plain sight. How many people – even those who are reading these reports “Professionally” ever make it to foot note 460? 

    • #1
    • September 6, 2019, at 4:48 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  2. Mollie Hemingway Contributor

    I love this podcast.

    • #2
    • September 6, 2019, at 6:59 PM PDT
    • 8 likes
  3. Blue Yeti Admin

    Mollie Hemingway (View Comment):

    I love this podcast.

    You should go on it! 🙂

    • #3
    • September 6, 2019, at 7:20 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  4. RebeccaCoffey Thatcher

    I always enjoy this podcast but this one seemed way too short! May I strongly support the idea of a second or even third podcast on this subject with Catherine Herridge?

    • #4
    • September 7, 2019, at 7:32 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  5. Arahant Member

    Excellent interview, even if a bit meta.

    • #5
    • September 7, 2019, at 1:12 PM PDT
    • Like
  6. colleenb Member

    Fantastic interview. I’m going to have to come up with new superlatives if Byron keeps hitting them out of the park. I second @blueyeti that M Heminway should be on the podcast. I’d also nominate Margot Cleveland of The Federalist. Keep up this very important work!

    • #6
    • September 10, 2019, at 12:48 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  7. LibertyDefender Member

    @29:40:

    … they know there’s a DNC hack, …

    No they/we don’t!!

    The DNC servers were NEVER inspected.

    The data signature appears to suggest a leak, not a hack.

    Wikileaks claims not to have received the emails from (the presumptive hackers) Russians.

    The Mueller investigation gave no explanation for their claim that the DNC emails were hacked.

    Why is it so universally accepted that the DNC emails were hacked?

    • #7
    • September 10, 2019, at 4:07 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  8. OccupantCDN Coolidge

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):

    @29:40:

    … they know there’s a DNC hack, …

    No they/we don’t!!

    The DNC servers were NEVER inspected.

    The data signature appears to suggest a leak, not a hack.

    Wikileaks claims not to have received the emails from (the presumptive hackers) Russians.

    The Mueller investigation gave no explanation for their claim that the DNC emails were hacked.

    Why is it so universally accepted that the DNC emails were hacked?

    Exactly! They should be using the word “Alleged” when discussing the DNC ‘hack’.

    The other point that makes this look like a leak, and not a hack, is that if you ‘hack’ a mail server – you have access to all the mailboxes on it – not just one. (John Podesta’s in this case) IF the server had been hacked we would’ve seen the greatest hits of the entire DNC HQ staff. I suspect there would’ve been numerous violations of the Hatch Act, plus blatant pay for play scandals and worse in those mail servers.

    • #8
    • September 10, 2019, at 8:03 PM PDT
    • 1 like