In the annals of media stupidity in blind service of their political allies in the “intelligence community” and the political world, it would be hard to top today’s New York Times installment of the new authorized version. It comes with an unintentionally humorous headline. Indeed it may be an instant classic of the “fake but accurate” variety: “F.B.I. Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims.”
The story requires the full cast of Times scribes whom I would note for the record. The byline credits Adam Goldman, Mark Mazzetti, and Matthew Rosenberg. Nicholas Fandos, Sharon LaFraniere, Katie Benner and Eileen Sullivan are also credited with what the Times is pleased to call “reporting.”
It becomes clearer every day that the vaunted “counterintelligence investigation” initiated by the FBI in mid-2016 constituted a pretext to conduct surveillance of the Trump campaign using the panoply of powers held by the federal government to protect the United States from foreign threats. It is a helluva story, perhaps the biggest scandal in American political history.
Every day, Barack Obama, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey and their underlings come ever more sharply into into focus as enemies of the constitutional order. The New York Times and the Times’s mainstream media colleagues have served as their indispensable tools. See, for example, the linked Times story.
The Times’s helpful but anonymous sources all but name the supposedly top secret informant whom they used for their purposes in the “counterintelligence investigation.” Yet they have previously complained that disclosure of his identity threatened his life and further participation in continuing investigations. Chuck Ross, incidentally, filled in much of the underlying story this past March in “A London Meeting Before The Election Aroused George Papadopoulos’s Suspicions.”
Over the last week, DOJ and FBI officials conspired to obstruct Congress while illegally leaking to and colluding with New York Times and Washington Post across five separate news articles to out a U.S. informant.
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) May 19, 2018
This whole subplot involving the confidential informant seems to me a classic red herring intended to divert us. To throw us off the scent. What is going on here?