It’s amazing, and yet not surprising, that Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) would take to Twitter to tell those in the media and the press how they should be reporting on Spygate.

On Monday, Schumer tweeted, “Memo to the press: When you quote the president saying “spygate,” 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.”

Memo to the press: When you quote the president saying “spygate,” 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 (@SenSchumer) May 28, 2018

He was not the only one to start down this path.  Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah’s Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper also didn’t like the use of the term “spy.”

Here’s Clapper on CBS’ Face the Nation.

However, just weeks ago, though he didn’t want to use the term “spy,” Clapper admitted the FBI “may have had someone who was talking to them in the campaign” and that informant was providing information to the FBI to find out “what the Russians were doing to try to substantiate themselves in the campaign or influence or leverage it.”

“So, if there was someone that was observing that sort of thing, that’s a good thing,” Clapper said.

He then added, “It’s hugely dangerous if someone like that is exposed because the danger to that person” and the potential “reluctance of others to be informants for the FBI” could possibly devastate the FBI.

Well, why would that be?  Is that person not essentially a spy?  Why is there a need to protect the identity of the individual if that person was not a spy?

Of course, they are a spy.  Clapper and Schumer are playing semantics here.  Informants are spies who provide information of what they have seen or heard.

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines a spy as:

SPY, noun

1. A person sent into an enemys camp to inspect their works, ascertain their works, ascertain their strength and their intentions, to watch their movements, and secretly communicate intelligence to the proper officer. By the laws of war among all civilized nations, a spy is subjected to capital punishment.

2. A person deputed to watch the conduct of others.

3. One who watches the conduct of others.

Is anyone really buying that a spy was not embedded in the Trump campaign to do the above?  I think it’s pretty clear they were.

We already know that we cannot trust James Clapper from his admission that he gave the ‘least untruthful’ answer to a direct question about the extent of surveillance on US citizens to his testimony before Congress about the Steele Dossier leak.

According to The Intercept, Stefan Halper, “was responsible for a long-forgotten spying scandal involving the 1980 election, in which the Reagan campaign – using CIA officials managed by Halper, reportedly under the direction of former CIA director and then-vice-presidential candidate George H.W. Bush – got caught running a spying operation from inside the Carter administration. The plot involved CIA operatives passing classified information about Carter’s foreign policy to Reagan campaign officials in order to ensure the Reagan campaign knew of any foreign policy decisions that Carter was considering.”

We are not talking about someone who doesn’t have a history of spying being involved, but a well known CIA operative.

Take a look at Ben Swann’s report.

So, when it comes to Chuck Schumer, no one should be listening to him and he has no business telling anyone how to report on the criminal actions of the FBI and the Obama administration.

Article posted with permission from Freedom Outpost