How the media is working overtime to tell you the FBI didn't "spy" on Trump campaign--just "an informant"

The media’s ever-so-earnest lies about the FBI placing a spy in the Trump campaign--that is, earnestly denying that they ever did that--grow more absurd by the day. Turn on CNN at almost any hour and you'll see some well-known talking head newsreader claiming it never happened.

Couldn't possibly, citizen!

It's very much worth our time to examine these lies closely, to find the telling omissions, and inadvertent revelations.  It's like the mainstream media has an emergency manual always ready in case anything happens that would hurt the Democrats.  The manual says the first line of defense is to tell the public there's nothing to the story, urging the public not to be concerned about it.

To help this effort there are always useful idiots in the RINO wing of the GOP eager to repeat the narrative that there's nothing to the story.

If the public stays stubbornly interested, the fallback position is to convince the public they're really, really investigating the story--by publishing a dozen interviews with Democrats--never named but termed "anonymous sources inside the goverment tell us..."   Of course all the "sources" agree with the first talking point:  Nothing there, citizen.  Move along.

That’s the tack taken by the Washington Post, which is now on at least its second major story about the spying by Stefan Halper that dare not speak its name. The reporters on this story must have worked up a sweat trying to find just the right euphemism for the headline of the piece: 
 “Cambridge University perch gave FBI source access to top intelligence figures — and a cover as he reached out to Trump associates”

He's not a spy, citizen.  Heaven forfend!  Instead he's simply a "source."  An "informant."  Not a spy.  And the FBI  didn't "place him in the campaign."  Instead he merely “reached out” to it, as innocently as a mother reaching out to a child. 

Halper was never a spy, citizen.  He merely “assisted the FBI in a secret operation — investigating Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 White House race.”

The media is determined to make the FBI's placing a spy in the Trump campaign sound completely normal and harmless.  "We're just protecting the country, cuz we really really had solid evidence that someone in the GOP campaign was reaching out to Russia.  We couldn't let that go."

The reporters on the piece obviously had access to the government officials who know the whole story about Halper. So why don’t they tell it? Why is it that those officials can tell the reporters that Halper’s work “appeared to be routine” (note the weasel word “appeared”) but refuse to say the exact date that it began or who in the Obama administration authorized it.

If the story put Brennan’s CIA and Comey’s FBI in a good light, those agencies would be bragging to their partners at the Post about every detail of their brilliance.  They haven't.  A great question is, why not?

 … there are lingering questions about his role — including how he was activated and why his first contact with a then-little-known Trump adviser, Carter Page, came weeks before the Justice Department investigation was officially opened. It is also unclear how long Halper — who remained in touch with Page until at least July 2017 — assisted the FBI in the probe. Halper declined to comment. The FBI declined to comment.

Halper is lucky that he spied on a Republican campaign. Had he spied on a Democratic one, reporters would be staked out in front of his house 24/7. Instead, they run pieces like this one burnishing his reputation. Much of the media’s coverage has consisted of one Deep State hack vouching for another Deep State hack,

To the extent that the Post allows any criticism of Halper, it comes from the “private” grousing of faculty members at Cambridge who feel that his side job as a spy makes them all look a bit scummy. A spokesman for Cambridge assured the Post that Halper’s status is simply “emeritus” rather than a currently active professor but declined to answer any questions about how he parlayed his position at the school into a spying perch. It has also instructed professors not to talk about the matter. Having produced so many other con men — Kim Philby and company — Cambridge would rather not be associated with another one.

Halper was sure as hell spying.

Read the whole thing here.