Wednesday, May 30

4 days after Clapper said FBI paying a "spy" was "hyperbole," he admits it on live TV

Democrats and the Lying Mainstream Media are in full-throated, contemptuously-dismissive denial mode regarding whether the FBI--and possibly other government agencies--paid someone to spy on the Trump campaign.

"Nonsense!" top Democrat "leaders yell.   "Never happened!" echo the Lying Media.  "Tinfoil-hat stuff!"

Oooh, problem is, on May 22nd there was a serious "narrative breach"--and by someone so high up the chain that he can't be dismissed as a "disgruntled former employee" (a routine defense tactic): Obama's "Director of National Intelligence," James Clapper.  Who flatly admitted there was a spy.

And this admission happened on live national television, on a program recorded by thousands of bloggers, so it's really, really hard for Dems and the Lying Mainstream Media to convince Americans that it simply didn't happen.

Of course that doesn't keep them from trying--and indeed, on Memorial Day the most powerful Democrat politician still in office--senator Chuck Schumer--warned the media that any story they ran that quoted anyone as claiming the FBI paid someone to spy on the Trump campaign should be accompanied by the caveat that
"it is only fair to immediately follow that by noting there is absolutely no evidence of a spy being inserted in his campaign. It seems to me, failure to do so is a disservice to your readers, viewers & the country."  --Chuck Schumer (source at end of article)

Of course this was a week AFTER Clapper had already admitted there WAS a spy.  But that hardly stops the top Democrat from lying about it (i.e. claiming "there is absolutely no evidence...; well, as long as you're willing to ignore the admission by Obama's director of national intelligence).

As a result of the double-hit --source being Obama's top official on national intelligence, and happens live, on a widely-viewed TV program--the usual methods the Dems and mainstream media use to neutralize a narrative breach won't work here.  So that leaves 'em with two options--both fairly effective: one is continue to lie about "no evidence" (like Obama's dismissal of the IRS targetting conservative organizations as "not even a smidgen of corruption"), and #2, spin like a top.

Now, for students, the term "spin" is a euphemism for "lie, but in a superficially-plausible way."  The mainstream media is very good at it, having practiced it for decades.  In this case the spin is one of 3 types (so far):
  1) "It's simply unbelievable that the FBI would do such a thing, but if they did, the person wasn't a spy but simply an 'informant.'"
  2)  Not a "spy" but a..."human intelligence source."
  3) "I don't like that term 'spying.' I think perhaps 'surveil' is perhaps a more important word." (And far less likely to bother voters!)
  4) "a whistleblower."
  5) "We did it to protect Trump, and he should be grateful."

In the video clip (below) it sounds to me like Clapper is free-associating, trying out different ideas to see if he can find a combination that will convince viewers that he and the rest of the intel community were doing a good thing

Clapper: "With the informant business, well, the point here is the Russians--not spying on the campaign, but what are the Russians doing?  And in a sense, unfortunately [sic], what they were trying to do is protect our political system and protect the campaign."

Joy Behar (2:15): "But the FBI started to look into Trump's ties to Russia in the summer of 2016. Trump tweeted that this spring -- this spying--rather, this spying that he claims is spying--other people say it's a whistleblower or informant.... So...was the FBI spying on Trump's campaign?"

Clapper: "No--I--it--No they were not.  They were spying on--a term I don't particularly like, but--on what the Russians were doing. Trying to understand were the Russians infiltrating, trying to gain access, trying to gain leverage or influence, which is what they do."
Behar: "Well why doesn't he like that? He should be happy."

Clapper: "He should be."

Behar: "Right"

Finally, contrast Clapper's May 22nd interview above with one he gave 4 days earlier, to one of CNN's shills:

In this interview Clapper says the president's claim that the Obama administration paid someone to spy on his campaign is merely "hyperbole."  "They [the Obama admin's FBI] may have had someone who was talking to them in the, uh, in, uh, the campaign.  But you know, the focus here... is not on the campaign, per se, but what the Russians were doing," Clapper said. 

"So IF there was someone that was observing that sort of thing, that's a good thing."

Hyperbole, of course, is exaggerating something.  Instead of a flat denial, Clapper's choice of words implies he knows the accusation is true but is looking to de-fuse the charge.

FYI, here's Chuck Schumer's tweet giving the media their orders on Memorial Day:
Okay, so where is this all leading?  Unfortunately, nowhere.  The Democrats have committed to their narrative that either a) it didn't happen; or b) that if it did, the guy was NOT a spy, merely an "informant;" and c) they did it to protect the campaign; and d) although charges of an FBI informant are mere hyperbole, "anyone who tries to reveal this alleged informant will do grave damage to our national security."  They will never admit the FBI paying someone to infiltrate the campaign and give all info the the FBI was a bad thing, so they will expend every resource needed to protect the people who authorized or ordered it.  Including Obama.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home