The Media’s Defense Of Obama Administration Spying Defies Logic You don't have to be a Donald Trump fan to be concerned about the abuses of intelligence agencies. By David Harsanyi May 23, 2018 It doesn’t matter what you think about Donald Trump — revelations that a major party’s administration was spying on another one deserve a seriousness that’s lacking in major media coverage. A recent piece by CNN’s Chris Cillizza encapsulates many of the absurd talking points adopted by an extraordinarily incurious media. And when I say incurious, I mean they’ve taken to actively dismissing evidence regarding a story that would be a huge deal in any other era. Trump asked the Justice Department this week to expand an inspector general report into the conduct of the Obama administration’s actions during the 2016 election. Many supposed champions of transparency, process, and law enforcement were upset. “If Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch meeting on a tarmac in 2016 bothered you,” asks Cillizza, “then why doesn’t Donald Trump telling the Justice Department what to do in 2018 bother you?” A recent piece by CNN’s Chris Cillizza encapsulates many of the absurd talking points adopted by an extraordinarily incurious media. And when I say incurious, I mean they’ve taken to actively dismissing evidence regarding a story that would be a huge deal in any other era.’s numerous abuses as nothing. Even today we are relegated to a Clintonian parsing of words to describe events. Many journalists take umbrage at the contention that there was spying going on, because “spying” sounds far too serious for their liking. But it’s the right word. A spy is a “person who secretly collects and reports information on the activities, movements, and plans of an enemy or competitor.” Now, perhaps we’re going to find out that informants were warranted and that their presence did not predate the official launch of the investigation. We might learn that a number of Trump’s associates were part of some scheme to work with Russia’s Vladimir Putin during 2016. There is, to this point, “zero evidence” that is the case. It’s hardly a conspiracy theory, no matter how over-the-top or politically motivated the president’s comments might be, to investigate the Obama administration’s actions. Bad opinions aren’t illegal. Putin’s support for a particular campaign doesn’t immediately translate into criminality. What kind of precedent are we setting if there’s no investigation into the Obama administration’s actions? ~Snip~ Would the informants passing information to the administration be considered “spies” by political journalists? I imagine they would be. And I imagine we wouldn’t be talking about much else. Source: https://thefederalist.com/2018/05/23/the-medias-defense-of-obama-administration-spying-defies-logic/ ~~~~~~ Progressive Marxist Socialists are known to say, 'its not the facts that matter, its the seriousness of the charge'. Well this is certainly a serious charge. Its fascinating to watch how they worm their way out of denying it has merit. Just don’t accuse them of hypocrisy. This only defies logic, until you realize some day, that the Deep State owns/controls the DNC, the DOJ/FBI/CIA, our media and its fake news/lying conspirators.
The thing is that the leftist allied mainstream media absolutely cannot take Trump's order to investigate the political element of the Trump/Russia circus seriously because they KNOW that it all ultimately leads back to Barack Obama and even if they are quite willing to let Hillary Clinton hang at this point they will never, EVER give up on protecting Barack Obama with everything they can muster, period.
