Media Brazenly Whitewashes Obama Political Spying

The FBI (and others) engaged in political spying in a national presidential campaign!

You know IT has hit the fan when The New York Times says that political spying was completely legit. The headline tells you that the world is coming to an end: “F.B.I. Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims.” So they’re admitting that Donald Trump’s accusation is serious and they must devote their resources to refuting it.

President Trump accused the F.B.I. on Friday, without evidence, of sending a spy to secretly infiltrate his 2016 campaign “for political purposes” even before the bureau had any inkling of the “phony Russia hoax.”

Without evidence?

take our poll - story continues below

Should President Trump declare a national emergency to build the wall?

  • Should President Trump declare a national emergency to build the wall?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Eagle Rising updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Hillary, Huma and the Muslim Brotherhood

The very next paragraph tells us that he is right.

In fact, F.B.I. agents sent an informant to talk to two campaign advisers only after they received evidence that the pair had suspicious contacts linked to Russia during the campaign. The informant, an American academic who teaches in Britain, made contact late that summer with one campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, according to people familiar with the matter. He also met repeatedly in the ensuing months with the other aide, Carter Page, who was also under F.B.I. scrutiny for his ties to Russia.

The role of the informant is at the heart of the newest battle between top law enforcement officials and Mr. Trump’s congressional allies over the F.B.I.’s most politically charged investigations in decades. The lawmakers, who say they are concerned that federal investigators are abusing their authority, have demanded documents from the Justice Department about the informant.

Law enforcement officials have refused, saying that handing over the documents would imperil both the source’s anonymity and safety. The New York Times has learned the source’s identity but typically does not name informants to preserve their safety.

But everyone in the world already knows who the source is. And his safety is not at stake (unless Hillary decides to have him suicided). As far as his “anonymity” is concerned, that’s just another way of saying they don’t want to identify him.

And again: Devin Nunes was never trying to publicly reveal the spy. He was trying to understand how the investigation happened as part of his job—which includes oversight. The FBI outed their spy to the mainstream media to justify their refusal to tell the Congressional committee about him. They released details that made it easy to figure out.

Of course, the FBI didn’t get a warrant or bring Carter Page in for questioning. The sent a spy. The idea that “questionable” Russian contacts can legitimize such behavior is ridiculous. We all know that the same team working (when they weren’t banging other people’s spouses) to whitewash Hillary’s crimes, were inventing crimes as a pretext to spy on Trump. It was a political witch hunt from beginning to end.

If all this stuff was perfectly innocent and reasonable “investigation” and not political spying, then why deny it happened for eighteen months?

Read the full story.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

About the author

Joe Scudder

Joe Scudder

Joe Scudder is the "nom de plume" (or "nom de guerre") of a fifty-ish-year-old writer and stroke survivor. He lives in St Louis with his wife and still-at-home children. He has been a freelance writer and occasional political activist since the early nineties. He describes his politics as Tolkienesque.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Send this to a friend