WHEN IS AN ‘INFORMANT’ NOT A ‘SPY’???

The answer to that, according to those in the media, is whenever the so-called ‘informant’ is involved in ‘spying’ on the campaign of a Republican candidate.  Because whenever an ‘informant’ is found anywhere near a Democrat candidate’s campaign they are always called a ‘spy.’   So if you’re all a bit confused when it comes to the ongoing investigation in Russia’s impact on our 2016 election, and the role that the Trump campaign, the intelligence community, and Hitlery’s campaign may have had in what was happening, don’t worry you’ve got lots of company.

And the reason for so much confusion regarding this entire informant/spy issue has to do with the fact that our state-controlled media has done a rather amazing job blaming President Trump for muddying the waters, when in fact it’s actually been those involved with the media itself that have been attempting, and succeeding, to confuse everyone.  For example, it was two of this nation’s more prominent propaganda machines, the Washington Post and the New York Times, that originally broke the stories that revealed that there was a ‘spy’ in the Trump campaign. 

However, It was just a few day lather that if you were to read either of these same rags you would have been told that President Trump is lying and that there never was a ‘spy’ in the campaign!  Instead, what there was… was a “confidential informant.”   See, there was this guy who was gathering information on the campaign and the people in the campaign, then surreptitiously handing all of that information over to the FBI who were secretly investigating that campaign.  Now, sure, most of us would call this spying… but those in the media tell us that it’s not really spying.

So this is how low those in the state-controlled media have now sunk and it’s the folks there at the Communist News Network, aka (CNN),that would like us all to know that the President is a liar for saying that the government was spying on his campaign… even though the government was spying on his campaign.   First there was that moron, Don Lemon, explaining why there was no spy, even though there was, and then that bigger moron, Jake Tapper, calling the President a liar, even though he’s not lying about this.  And yet these boobs call themselves journalist?  

Thankfully, there are still some pundits out there willing to be intellectually honest. Mollie Hemingway recently appeared on Fox News where she went toe-to-toe with a Washington Post reporter who had the devil of a time explaining why her paper would reveal the fact that there was a spy in the campaign, before then arguing that there was no spy.  Hemingway blasted the media, the intelligence community , and even RINO Senator Marco Rubio while explaining the hypocrisy that was self-evident in the ongoing Russia investigation and the coverage surrounding it.

Hemingway said, “Maybe Republican vs. Democrat isn’t the best way to view this, so much as the establishment vs. outsider. And Marco Rubio apparently is unaware that the FBI opened an investigation into the Trump campaign, he says there is no investigation into the Trump campaign — that is not a secret. They opened an investigation during the campaign, and what we have learned in the last week from reporting in the Washington Post and New York Times is that this investigation involved far more surveillance than we ever had any idea about.”

And she went on to say, “ It wasn’t just a wiretap against a campaign aide that was able to wear a wiretap… it was also national security letters, which are secret subpoenas, and we know of at least one informant, someone secretly gathering information on the Trump campaign. We are supposedly not allowed to call that a spy, but in the normal world people call that spying, but whatever it is, it is unprecedented, and the lack of journalistic curiosity about what was going on, how this happened, and whether protocol was followed is frankly scandalous.”

Hemingway, of course, is 100% correct, and the media hacks at CNN and nearly everywhere else out there in the wild, wacky world of our state-controlled media complex, should be ashamed of the way they’ve ‘covered’ the ongoing investigation.  But they’re not.  Instead they all seem to be rather proud of the job they’re doing.  Hence we have one more example on what has become a very, very long list of many examples of why fewer and fewer Americans feel that they can trust those in the media to be telling the truth, and it’s even fewer that trust CNN.  

When those in the media can no longer be trusted to tell the truth, what purpose is it that they serve?  Trust and credibility were once the watchwords of those in media.  But no more!  There no longer seems to be even the slightest interest by those who were once referred to as the watch dogs of our democracy to verify the ‘facts’ of a story.  So slowly, over time, people stop listening.  And it’s those in the media that are doing the people, as well as themselves, a grave disservice, because there will come a time when the people should have been listening, but weren’t.